[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Interpret the following behavioral session log. Provide clinical concerns, pattern classification, behavior function hypothesis (if applicable), programming recommendations (antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis), escalation level, confidence, and data-supported rationale.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6485
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Mand + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-02-10 to 2026-03-02)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-10 — 51 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/12 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 3/8 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-02-12 — 51 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/15 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-02-14 — 51 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9

Session 4 — 2026-02-16 — 51 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/10 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6

Session 5 — 2026-02-18 — 51 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×7

Session 6 — 2026-02-20 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 81% (primary); IOA 70% agreement
  brushing teeth independently: 69% (primary); IOA 70% agreement
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 72% (primary); IOA 70% agreement

Session 7 — 2026-02-22 — 51 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8

Session 8 — 2026-02-24 — 51 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5

Session 9 — 2026-02-26 — 51 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  brushing teeth independently: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×8

Session 10 — 2026-02-28 — 51 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Playing with non-task materials
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 44% at return, recovering to 81%.
- Maintenance schedule should be reviewed and strengthened.

## Pattern Classification
skill_loss_after_break

Sharp drop at the start of the log followed by gradual recovery indicates skill loss following an absence.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Implement booster sessions at the most-recently-effective prompt level.
- Increase session frequency temporarily until pre-break levels are recovered.

### Consequence strategies
- Review and strengthen the maintenance schedule to prevent future skill loss.
- Consider sending practice materials home during extended breaks.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

Programming adjustments indicated at next session; no immediate safety concern.

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 10 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 71.5%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 44%, last session: 81%).
- IOA data: 70% agreement on IOA session — below threshold.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Review this session log and produce a structured clinical interpretation.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6673
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Mand + Self-Care + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-01-25 to 2026-02-12)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting assistance using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Property destruction — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-25 — 49 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 11/14 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  washing hands independently: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/9 correct (89%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 14/15 correct (93%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  using public transportation: 7/8 correct (82%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 2 — 2026-01-27 — 49 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 3/10 correct (27%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  washing hands independently: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  using public transportation: 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-01-29 — 49 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  washing hands independently: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/12 correct (87%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 9/10 correct (93%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  using public transportation: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 4 — 2026-01-31 — 49 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 3/9 correct (33%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  washing hands independently: 3/9 correct (31%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/13 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/13 correct (39%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  using public transportation: 4/12 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×1
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 5 — 2026-02-02 — 49 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  washing hands independently: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  clocking in at start of shift: 12/14 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 9/10 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  using public transportation: 10/11 correct (89%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 6 — 2026-02-04 — 49 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 3/9 correct (29%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  washing hands independently: 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/12 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×0
  using public transportation: 3/11 correct (27%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  Property destruction: freq 2
  ABC (property destruction): A = transition to non-preferred activity; B = dropped to floor, cried; C = transition delayed, preferred item offered

Session 7 — 2026-02-06 — 49 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/8 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  washing hands independently: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×11
  clocking in at start of shift: 12/13 correct (91%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 11/12 correct (89%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  using public transportation: 8/9 correct (90%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 8 — 2026-02-08 — 49 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/15 correct (24%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×3, I×6
  washing hands independently: 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/15 correct (33%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 3/8 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  using public transportation: 2/8 correct (30%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 9 — 2026-02-10 — 49 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  washing hands independently: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/11 correct (94%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/9 correct (94%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  using public transportation: 12/13 correct (89%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Property destruction: freq 2
  ABC (property destruction): A = asked to finish dressing task; B = kicked at materials; C = task paused for 3 min

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Playing with non-task materials
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)

Please include: (1) clinical concerns, (2) pattern classification, (3) function hypothesis for any target behaviors, (4) recommendations structured as antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis, (5) escalation level and confidence, (6) data-supported rationale.

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Generalization failure**: strong performance in training context but failure to generalize to novel conditions.
- Skill may be under restricted stimulus control.

## Pattern Classification
generalization_failure

Alternation between strong training performance and poor novel-condition performance indicates restricted stimulus control.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Property destruction: escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Implement structured generalization training: vary therapists, settings, and materials systematically.
- Use multiple-exemplar training — teach with 3–5 different stimulus sets.
- Program common stimuli across training and generalization settings.

### Consequence strategies
- Consider natural-environment training (NET) to supplement DTT for this skill.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

Programming adjustments indicated at next session; no immediate safety concern.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 9 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 56.0%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 78%, last session: 81%).
- Property destruction: mean 1.8/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 2.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
Design a Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: selects items by multiple features (round and red)
Curriculum: LRFFC L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Emerging

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by multiple features (round and red)
- Curriculum: LRFFC L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

This DTT program establishes stimulus control over the target skill through structured discrete trials with a defined prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, and systematic error-correction procedure.

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "Touch [target item]"
Variations: "Point to [target item]"; "Give me [target item]"; "Show me [target item]"
Presentation: Present an array of items on the table and deliver a clear verbal SD.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: apple, plate, glue
Distractor stimuli: towel, ball, car, book
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Model correct response -> lead (do together) -> test (independent) -> distractor -> retest.

## Reinforcement Schedule
CRF (continuous reinforcement) — Every correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
80% accuracy with 2 different therapists and 2 different settings.

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 3 additional therapists, and in at least 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.

selects items by multiple features (round and red)


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Review this session log and produce a structured clinical interpretation.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-3587
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-01-20 to 2026-02-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. requesting preferred items using a full sentence (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. requesting a break during non-preferred tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: tangible
2. Self-injurious behavior (SIB) — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-20 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 10/13 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4

Session 2 — 2026-01-22 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/9 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4

Session 3 — 2026-01-24 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/8 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 7, duration 35m total
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 9

Session 4 — 2026-01-26 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×14
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 7, duration 21m total
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 9

Session 5 — 2026-01-28 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 9/15 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/10 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 6 — 2026-01-30 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×3, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 9m total
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-02-01 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/9 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4

Session 8 — 2026-02-03 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×5, I×4
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×2
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/12 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 4m total
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Peer aggression (hitting or pushing peers during group activities)
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')

Please include: (1) clinical concerns, (2) pattern classification, (3) function hypothesis for any target behaviors, (4) recommendations structured as antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis, (5) escalation level and confidence, (6) data-supported rationale.

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Extinction burst** observed: temporary increase in problem behavior consistent with an extinction procedure.
- This is an expected phase of behavior change and typically indicates the intervention is working.

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

Mid-log spike in problem-behavior frequency followed by recovery is consistent with a planned extinction procedure.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Tantrum: tangible
  Evidence: behavior occurs when preferred items are restricted and is followed by access to the item.
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Maintain current antecedent arrangements — do not add extra demand.

### Replacement behavior (FCT)
- Ensure replacement response is available and reinforced at high magnitude during the burst.

### Consequence strategies
- **Maintain current protocol** — consistency during extinction bursts is critical.
- Ensure all team members are trained on the procedure.

### Crisis plan
- If problem-behavior intensity or topography exceeds the learner's baseline safety threshold (SIB causing tissue damage, aggression causing injury, imminent elopement into hazard): pause the extinction procedure and implement the facility's tiered crisis-prevention protocol (e.g., Safety-Care, CPI, or equivalent).
- De-escalation and environmental safety first; physical intervention is last resort and only by staff currently certified in the facility's framework. Least-restrictive option appropriate to the risk level applies at every step. Physical intervention is used only when specifically authorized for this learner in the BIP — contraindications (medical, developmental, trauma history) may restrict the procedures available, in which case the plan is de-escalation + environmental safety + supervisor contact only.
- Contact the supervising BCBA immediately; do not resume the extinction procedure without BCBA review. Document duration, intensity, antecedent, staff response, and post-incident state.

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

Combination of performance decline and/or behavior data warrants supervising BCBA review within 24–48 hours.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 8 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 72.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 74%, last session: 81%).
- Tantrum: mean 3.5/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 2.0).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 4.9/session (early-window mean 4.0 -> late-window mean 3.5).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: completes 8–12 piece puzzles
Curriculum Reference: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L2
Learner Profile: School-Age Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: completes 8–12 piece puzzles
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

This DTT program establishes stimulus control over the target skill through structured discrete trials with a defined prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, and systematic error-correction procedure.

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "Match"
Variations: "Find the same"; "Put with same"
Presentation: Present the sample stimulus and an array of comparison stimuli simultaneously.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, deliver gestural or positional prompts; fade toward independence.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: jacket, blanket, book
Distractor stimuli: car, bottle, crayon, glue
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
"No, watch me" -> model -> re-present SD -> differential reinforcement for correct response.

## Reinforcement Schedule
FR-2 (fixed ratio 2) — Every 2nd correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
Fluency criterion: correct responses within 3-second latency at 90% accuracy.

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 2 additional therapists, and in at least 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Interpret the following behavioral session log. Provide clinical concerns, pattern classification, behavior function hypothesis (if applicable), programming recommendations (antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis), escalation level, confidence, and data-supported rationale.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-5628
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-10-22 to 2026-11-15)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Verbal aggression — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-22 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  using public transportation: 9/10 correct (85%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 12/14 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 2 — 2026-10-24 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 2/8 correct (28%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  using public transportation: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/8 correct (47%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-10-26 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  using public transportation: 9/10 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 1
  ABC (verbal aggression): A = adult attention diverted to another learner; B = vocalized loudly + approached staff; C = staff turned to address behavior

Session 4 — 2026-10-28 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 3/13 correct (25%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  using public transportation: 4/8 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 5 — 2026-10-30 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  using public transportation: 11/13 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/8 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 6 — 2026-11-01 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/12 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  using public transportation: 4/11 correct (36%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/15 correct (41%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×9
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 7 — 2026-11-03 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  using public transportation: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×9
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 11/13 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 1
  ABC (verbal aggression): A = adult attention diverted to another learner; B = vocalized loudly + approached staff; C = staff turned to address behavior

Session 8 — 2026-11-05 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 3/8 correct (32%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  using public transportation: 6/14 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/13 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 9 — 2026-11-07 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/14 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  using public transportation: 8/10 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/8 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 10 — 2026-11-09 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 3/13 correct (26%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  using public transportation: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×12
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 11 — 2026-11-11 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  using public transportation: 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 11/12 correct (89%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 12 — 2026-11-13 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/11 correct (33%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  using public transportation: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/8 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Leaving seat without permission
- Looking away during SD presentation

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Generalization failure**: strong performance in training context but failure to generalize to novel conditions.
- Skill may be under restricted stimulus control.

## Pattern Classification
generalization_failure

Alternation between strong training performance and poor novel-condition performance indicates restricted stimulus control.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Verbal aggression: attention
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the attention function; behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Implement structured generalization training: vary therapists, settings, and materials systematically.
- Use multiple-exemplar training — teach with 3–5 different stimulus sets.
- Program common stimuli across training and generalization settings.

### Consequence strategies
- Consider natural-environment training (NET) to supplement DTT for this skill.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

Programming adjustments indicated at next session; no immediate safety concern.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 12 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 52.8%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 75%, last session: 33%).
- Verbal aggression: mean 0.2/session (early-window mean 0.5 -> late-window mean 0.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
Design a Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: identifies all upper-case letters
Curriculum: Reading L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Approaching mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: identifies all upper-case letters
- Curriculum: Reading L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

This DTT program establishes stimulus control over the target skill through structured discrete trials with a defined prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, and systematic error-correction procedure.

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What letter is this?"
Variations: "Read this letter"; "What does this say?"
Presentation: Present the letter flashcard.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, deliver gestural or positional prompts; fade toward independence.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: Q, C, V
Distractor stimuli: T, J, R, E
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Re-present SD -> provide effective-level prompt -> reinforce prompted response -> distractor trial -> re-present SD independently.

## Reinforcement Schedule
FR-2 (fixed ratio 2) — Every 2nd correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
90% accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions.

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 3 additional therapists, and in at least 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: tolerating hair washing by caregiver
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Near mastery
Teaching Method: Toleration / Systematic Desensitization

The goal is for the learner to allow the activity to be performed (not to perform it independently). Provide the full program structure including shaping steps and refusal/safety procedures.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tolerating hair washing by caregiver
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery
- Approach: Toleration / systematic desensitization (caregiver-delivered activity)

This program builds tolerance for hair washing / shampooing performed by caregiver through systematic shaping. The learner is not being taught to perform the skill independently — the goal is to allow the caregiver or staff to perform it across an incrementally increasing duration, without refusal, crying, self-injurious behavior, or aggression.

## Toleration End Goal
full hair-washing routine completed by caregiver without refusal or safety behaviors

## Shaping Progression
Teach by moving through these shaping steps in order. Advance to the next step only when the current step is tolerated for 3 consecutive sessions without safety behaviors.

1. 5 seconds of water on hair
2. 15 seconds of water on hair
3. Shampoo applied without lathering
4. 30 seconds of gentle lathering
5. 60 seconds of lathering
6. Full rinse
7. Full routine: wet -> shampoo -> lather -> rinse

Current shaping step: At the near mastery stage, begin at shaping step 4 ("30 seconds of gentle lathering") and advance through step 5 across sessions as tolerance stabilizes.

## Antecedent Strategies
- Pre-warn the learner before the activity begins (verbal or visual schedule).
- Offer a preferred item or sensory tool to hold during the activity.
- Where possible, offer a choice of position, location, or starting point.
- Keep the environment calm and predictable; avoid other demands immediately before or after.

## Reinforcement
Deliver high-magnitude, high-preference reinforcement contingent on successful toleration of the target duration. Pair with effusive praise. Reinforcement is continuous (CRF) during acquisition of each shaping step.

## Refusal and Safety Procedures
- If the learner refuses or turns away: pause briefly (5–10 seconds), re-present the activity at the current or previous shaping step.
- If problem behavior (crying, property destruction, SIB, aggression, peer aggression) emerges: stop the activity immediately, implement the facility crisis plan, and document the incident.
- Do NOT remove the activity contingent on safety behaviors in a way that establishes an escape-maintained pattern — consult supervising BCBA for the specific escape-extinction protocol appropriate to this learner.

## Mastery Criteria
End-goal duration tolerated across 3 consecutive sessions with no safety behaviors (refusal, crying, SIB, aggression, property destruction).

## Data Collection
Per-trial: duration tolerated before refusal, presence / absence of safety behaviors (crying, property destruction, SIB, aggression), staff support level, and shaping step attempted. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full routine across 3 different settings and with 2 different adults (including the primary caregiver if relevant). Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a DTT program for this skill.

Target: selects items by negative features (not round, not food)
Curriculum: LRFFC L3
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

Please include the SD, prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, error correction procedure, reinforcement schedule, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by negative features (not round, not food)
- Curriculum: LRFFC L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

This DTT program establishes stimulus control over the target skill through structured discrete trials with a defined prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, and systematic error-correction procedure.

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "Touch [target item]"
Variations: "Point to [target item]"; "Give me [target item]"; "Show me [target item]"
Presentation: Present an array of items on the table and deliver a clear verbal SD.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Graduated Guidance
Sequence: hand over hand full -> hand over hand light -> shadow -> independent
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: spoon, block, scissors
Distractor stimuli: car, blanket, glue, phone, hat
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
"No, watch me" -> model -> re-present SD -> differential reinforcement for correct response.

## Reinforcement Schedule
VR-3 (variable ratio 3) — Average of every 3rd correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
Demonstrated use in natural environment across 3 independent instances.

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 3 additional therapists, and in at least 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.

selects items by negative features (not round, not food)


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a Task Analysis program for this multi-step skill.

Target: completing assigned tasks in order
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Near mastery

Please include the task analysis (numbered steps), chain type, prompt strategy per step, error correction, reinforcement, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: completing assigned tasks in order
- Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

This Task Analysis program teaches the target skill as a chain of discrete steps, each taught and reinforced until the learner can complete the full sequence independently.

## Task Analysis
Chain type: Backward chaining
Complete all steps for the learner except the last; teach the last step first, then work backward. The final reinforcer (task completion) is always present for the learner.

Steps:
1. Review the task list for the shift.
2. Gather needed materials for the first task.
3. Complete the first task to the specified standard.
4. Mark the first task complete on the list.
5. Return materials to storage.
6. Move to the next task on the list and repeat.  <- Learner-taught step (backward chaining starts here)

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Allow independent attempt; add progressively more intrusive prompts only if learner does not initiate.
Current prompt level: At the near mastery stage, deliver the least intrusive prompt that prevents an error; expect independence on previously-mastered steps.

## Error Correction Procedure
Back-step + re-approach: Return to the previously-mastered step; re-execute that step correctly; then re-attempt the missed step with one prompt level above the last independent level

## Reinforcement
Token economy — One token per correctly-completed step; token exchange at chain completion.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

## Mastery Criteria
Chain self-initiated from the appropriate antecedent (no verbal prompt to begin) across 3 consecutive opportunities.

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full chain across 2 different settings and with 2 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a DTT program for this skill.

Target: selects items by feature (find something red)
Curriculum: Listener Responding L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

Please include the SD, prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, error correction procedure, reinforcement schedule, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by feature (find something red)
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

This DTT program establishes stimulus control over the target skill through structured discrete trials with a defined prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, and systematic error-correction procedure.

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "Touch [target item]"
Variations: "Point to [target item]"; "Give me [target item]"; "Show me [target item]"
Presentation: Present an array of items on the table and deliver a clear verbal SD.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, deliver gestural or positional prompts; fade toward independence.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: sock, hat, glue
Distractor stimuli: backpack, block, car, book
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Re-present SD -> provide effective-level prompt -> reinforce prompted response -> distractor trial -> re-present SD independently.

## Reinforcement Schedule
FR-2 (fixed ratio 2) — Every 2nd correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
90% accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions.

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 2 additional therapists, and in at least 2 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.

selects items by feature (find something red)


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a DTT program for this skill.

Target: selects items by class with exclusion (animal but not a pet)
Curriculum: LRFFC L3
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

Please include the SD, prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, error correction procedure, reinforcement schedule, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by class with exclusion (animal but not a pet)
- Curriculum: LRFFC L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

This DTT program establishes stimulus control over the target skill through structured discrete trials with a defined prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, and systematic error-correction procedure.

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "Touch [target item]"
Variations: "Point to [target item]"; "Give me [target item]"; "Show me [target item]"
Presentation: Present an array of items on the table and deliver a clear verbal SD.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: cow, dog, horse
Distractor stimuli: lion, cat, frog, bird, pig
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Re-present SD -> provide effective-level prompt -> reinforce prompted response -> distractor trial -> re-present SD independently.

## Reinforcement Schedule
VR-3 (variable ratio 3) — Average of every 3rd correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
90% first-trial-correct across 5 consecutive sessions.

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 2 additional therapists, and in at least 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.

selects items by class with exclusion (animal but not a pet)


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: initiates social interactions with peers
Curriculum Reference: Social Behavior & Social Play L2
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Generalization phase
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: initiates social interactions with peers
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

This NET program teaches the target skill through naturalistic embedding — capturing motivated moments within the learner's routine rather than using contrived massed trials.

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Arrange a shared activity with one or more peers where the target response is naturally occasioned (turn-taking game, shared snack, collaborative task).
Primary natural context: shared snack.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's shared snack routine. Deliver the opportunity when the MO is evident (learner oriented to the relevant stimulus, approaching the materials, or demonstrating interest).

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Expectant look (pause)
Deliver no prompt — maintain eye contact and hold the preferred item until the learner responds.
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: peer engages back; activity continues with both.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 5 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 different adults during the teaching phase.

## Mastery Criteria
Independent use across 3 different adults and 2 different settings within 2 weeks.

## Data Collection
Opportunity-based data recording: each naturally-occasioned trial is scored for independence and topography. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe across novel peers, settings, and materials. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly. Fade adult-delivered prompts before declaring mastery.

initiates social interactions with peers


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Here is a multi-session behavioral log for a learner. Analyze it and provide your clinical interpretation using the structured format.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-5920
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Independent Living + Self-Care + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-02-04 to 2026-02-22)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
2. scheduling medical appointments (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
6. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-04 — 51 min — 1 observer
  self-advocacy statements: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  washing hands independently: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×13
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/14 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  using public transportation: 3/8 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/14 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-02-06 — 51 min — 1 observer
  self-advocacy statements: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  washing hands independently: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  clocking in at start of shift: 7/15 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  using public transportation: 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×14

Session 3 — 2026-02-08 — 51 min — 1 observer
  self-advocacy statements: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  washing hands independently: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  using public transportation: 6/12 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2

Session 4 — 2026-02-10 — 51 min — 1 observer
  self-advocacy statements: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  scheduling medical appointments: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×11
  washing hands independently: 9/12 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  using public transportation: 7/14 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×10
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-02-12 — 51 min — 1 observer
  self-advocacy statements: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  scheduling medical appointments: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  washing hands independently: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  using public transportation: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8

Session 6 — 2026-02-14 — 51 min — 1 observer
  self-advocacy statements: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×11
  scheduling medical appointments: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  washing hands independently: 11/13 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/8 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  using public transportation: 7/10 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×5, I×8

Session 7 — 2026-02-16 — 51 min — 1 observer
  self-advocacy statements: 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  scheduling medical appointments: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  washing hands independently: 10/11 correct (93%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  using public transportation: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2

Session 8 — 2026-02-18 — 51 min — 1 observer
  self-advocacy statements: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  scheduling medical appointments: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×10
  washing hands independently: 12/13 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  clocking in at start of shift: 14/15 correct (91%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×5, I×3
  using public transportation: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5

Session 9 — 2026-02-20 — 51 min — 1 observer
  self-advocacy statements: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 9/11 correct (86%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  washing hands independently: 10/11 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/10 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  using public transportation: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Smiling during reinforcement delivery
- Appropriate sitting posture maintained

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- Steady improvement: accuracy rose from 49% to 95% across 9 sessions.
- No clinical concerns at this time; mastery criteria should be reachable within a few additional sessions.

## Pattern Classification
mastery_progression

Accuracy is ascending cleanly across sessions with no interfering behaviors, consistent with a mastery-progression trajectory.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Continue current teaching procedure — it is effective for this learner.
- Maintain current stimulus arrangement; begin planning next skill in sequence.

### Consequence strategies
- Begin thinning reinforcement from CRF to FR-2 as accuracy stabilizes above 85%.
- Continue differential reinforcement for independent responses.

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 9 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 72.4%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 49%, last session: 95%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Interpret the following behavioral session log. Provide clinical concerns, pattern classification, behavior function hypothesis (if applicable), programming recommendations (antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis), escalation level, confidence, and data-supported rationale.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-4848
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading + Social Behavior
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-09-28 to 2026-10-14)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
2. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT
4. requesting a break during non-preferred tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. requesting preferred items using a full sentence (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-28 — 37 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/9 correct (86%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 12/15 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/12 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-09-30 — 37 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/13 correct (88%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×14
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×11
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/14 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×4

Session 3 — 2026-10-02 — 37 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/14 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/10 correct (85%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 9/10 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/9 correct (85%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×9

Session 4 — 2026-10-04 — 37 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/10 correct (88%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 8/9 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/9 correct (91%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-10-06 — 37 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/8 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 8/10 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/8 correct (93%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×6

Session 6 — 2026-10-08 — 37 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/8 correct (82%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 7/8 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/9 correct (91%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5

Session 7 — 2026-10-10 — 37 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/8 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  takes turns during structured activities: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 12/14 correct (88%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/9 correct (89%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5

Session 8 — 2026-10-12 — 37 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/8 correct (86%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 10/11 correct (92%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 11/12 correct (93%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×8

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Looking away during SD presentation

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (74%–81%) but primarily at prompted levels.
- Independent responding remains low despite extended training.

## Pattern Classification
prompt_dependency

Accuracy stays high only at prompted levels; independent responding remains low despite extended training.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Switch to a time-delay procedure (0s -> 2s -> 4s -> 6s) to encourage independent responding.
- Avoid inadvertent prompt delivery (therapist gaze, body positioning) that may function as a prompt.

### Consequence strategies
- Ensure differential reinforcement — independent responses receive higher-quality reinforcement than prompted responses.
- Consider stimulus fading instead of response prompting for this skill.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

Programming adjustments indicated at next session; no immediate safety concern.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 8 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 78.1%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 74%, last session: 81%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a NET program for this skill.

Target: spontaneously asks questions about the environment
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

Please include the MO arrangement, natural opportunity, prompt strategy, natural reinforcer, generalization tactics, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously asks questions about the environment
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

This NET program teaches the target skill through naturalistic embedding — capturing motivated moments within the learner's routine rather than using contrived massed trials.

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Create a small environmental change (new item, familiar item in new location, surprise event) that invites a verbal comment or question.
Primary natural context: activity setup.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's activity setup routine. Deliver the opportunity when the MO is evident (learner oriented to the relevant stimulus, approaching the materials, or demonstrating interest).

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Expectant look (pause)
Deliver no prompt — maintain eye contact and hold the preferred item until the learner responds.
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: adult attends to the comment with matching affect.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 3 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 2 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 different adults during the teaching phase.

## Mastery Criteria
Average rate of ≥ 3 spontaneous responses per 30-minute session across 3 consecutive sessions.

## Data Collection
Opportunity-based data recording: each naturally-occasioned trial is scored for independence and topography. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe across novel peers, settings, and materials. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly. Fade adult-delivered prompts before declaring mastery.

spontaneously asks questions about the environment


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Interpret the following behavioral session log. Provide clinical concerns, pattern classification, behavior function hypothesis (if applicable), programming recommendations (antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis), escalation level, confidence, and data-supported rationale.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-9879
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Motor Imitation + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-05-03 to 2026-05-21)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
2. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
4. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. imitates 3-step motor sequences (Motor Imitation)
   Method: DTT variant

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Elopement — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-03 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×4, I×2
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/8 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  selects items by feature: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  Elopement: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-05-05 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  selects items by feature: 6/9 correct (72%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/12 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  Elopement: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-05-07 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/8 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  selects items by feature: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/8 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  Elopement: freq 3

Session 4 — 2026-05-09 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/8 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  selects items by feature: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/10 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×4, I×2
  Elopement: freq 3

Session 5 — 2026-05-11 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  selects items by feature: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/9 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  Elopement: freq 5

Session 6 — 2026-05-13 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/12 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  selects items by feature: 6/15 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/11 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Elopement: freq 4

Session 7 — 2026-05-15 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 3/8 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  selects items by feature: 3/10 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/8 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  Elopement: freq 4

Session 8 — 2026-05-17 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  selects items by feature: 3/9 correct (33%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/12 correct (30%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/9 correct (46%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  Elopement: freq 5

Session 9 — 2026-05-19 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 3/8 correct (35%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/13 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  selects items by feature: 3/14 correct (18%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 3/11 correct (26%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  Elopement: freq 6

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Attempts at property destruction (throwing materials, swiping items off the surface)
- Elopement from the work area
- Pushing materials away from the work area

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (81% -> 35%) with escape-indicator behaviors.
- Risk of learned helplessness and escape-maintained behavior if not addressed.

## Pattern Classification
frustration_pattern

Declining accuracy co-occurs with escape-indicator behaviors, consistent with frustration and escape-maintained responding to demand.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Elopement: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- **Immediately** reduce task difficulty — drop back 1–2 prompt levels or present previously-mastered targets.
- Intersperse easy (mastered) tasks with acquisition targets at a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio.
- Shorten session length and increase break frequency.

### Replacement behavior (FCT)
- Teach a replacement response ('break please', 'wait please', 'all done') and reinforce it at the function of the problem behavior.
- Pair the replacement response with short, predictable escape windows.

### Consequence strategies
- Do NOT remove demand contingent on tantrum / escape behavior — this reinforces the escape function.
- Provide brief break contingent on independent replacement response instead.

### Crisis plan
- If aggression toward staff, peer aggression, SIB, or property destruction exceeds the learner's safety threshold: first use verbal de-escalation and environmental safety measures (clear the area, move peers to safe distance, remove hazards).
- If behavior continues to pose imminent risk, follow the facility's tiered crisis-intervention protocol — only staff currently certified in the facility's training (e.g., Safety-Care, CPI, PMT, or equivalent) may implement physical intervention, and the least-restrictive option appropriate to the risk level is used. Physical intervention is applied only when specifically authorized in this learner's BIP; for learners with contraindications (medical, developmental, trauma history, or explicit BIP restrictions), the plan stops at de-escalation + environmental safety + supervisor contact.
- Notify the supervising BCBA immediately; pause the skill-acquisition program until the BIP is reviewed. Document the incident (antecedent, topography, duration, staff response, post-incident state) per facility and BACB Ethics Code (2020, Section 3.05) requirements.

## Escalation Level
4 — Safety immediate

Safety-critical signals require immediate cessation of current program and direct BCBA contact; consider crisis-plan activation.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 9 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 57.1%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 81%, last session: 35%).
- Elopement: mean 3.8/session (early-window mean 2.3 -> late-window mean 5.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: taking medication as prescribed
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Independent Living Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Generalization phase
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: taking medication as prescribed
- Curriculum: AFLS Independent Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

This Task Analysis program teaches the target skill as a chain of discrete steps, each taught and reinforced until the learner can complete the full sequence independently.

## Task Analysis
Chain type: Forward chaining
Teach step 1 to mastery, then 1->2, then 1->2->3, progressively adding later steps.

Steps:
1. Check the medication schedule at the scheduled time.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Collect the correct medication bottle.
3. Confirm the dose against the label.
4. Measure or count the correct dose.
5. Take the medication with water.
6. Log the dose in the medication tracker.
7. Return the bottle to its storage location.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Allow independent attempt; add progressively more intrusive prompts only if learner does not initiate.
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, deliver the least intrusive prompt that prevents an error; expect independence on previously-mastered steps.

## Error Correction Procedure
Model -> prompt -> fade: Demonstrate the correct step; provide physical or gestural prompt as needed; fade prompt across subsequent trials

## Reinforcement
Terminal reinforcement (mastered) — Reinforcement delivered only at chain completion; no per-step reinforcement.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

## Mastery Criteria
Chain self-initiated from the appropriate antecedent (no verbal prompt to begin) across 3 consecutive opportunities.

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full chain across 2 different settings and with 3 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.