[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-8784
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Reading + Tact
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-07-11 to 2026-07-31)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
2. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-11 — 33 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 7/15 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×12

Session 2 — 2026-07-13 — 33 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×8

Session 3 — 2026-07-15 — 33 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 7/12 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3

Session 4 — 2026-07-17 — 33 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6

Session 5 — 2026-07-19 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  tacts colors of objects: 58% (primary); IOA 90% agreement
  sounds out CVC words: 60% (primary); IOA 90% agreement
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 55% (primary); IOA 90% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-07-21 — 33 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4

Session 7 — 2026-07-23 — 33 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×3

Session 8 — 2026-07-25 — 33 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 7/12 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×3

Session 9 — 2026-07-27 — 33 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/11 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9

Session 10 — 2026-07-29 — 33 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/15 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×0, I×8

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

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
- **Plateau**: accuracy has remained near 60% for 10 sessions without meaningful improvement.
- Performance is below mastery criteria; current teaching procedure may not be effective for this learner.

## Pattern Classification
plateau

Responding has stabilized below mastery criterion without meaningful movement, indicating the current procedure is limiting further acquisition.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Modify teaching procedure — switch prompt type (e.g., from most-to-least to time delay).
- Conduct preference assessment and update reinforcer menu.
- Break the current skill into smaller component steps if possible.
- Increase practice opportunities by embedding targets in natural-environment training.

### Consequence strategies
- Check for inadvertent reinforcement of near-misses; tighten differential reinforcement.

## 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: 59.5%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 50%, last session: 71%).
- IOA data: 90% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


[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-7486
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Mand + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-08-03 to 2026-08-27)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-03 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 11/15 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 11/13 correct (87%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/14 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 5m total

Session 2 — 2026-08-05 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 4m total

Session 3 — 2026-08-07 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/14 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/10 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 10m total

Session 4 — 2026-08-09 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 4m total

Session 5 — 2026-08-11 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 3m total

Session 6 — 2026-08-13 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/12 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total

Session 7 — 2026-08-15 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/12 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 10m total

Session 8 — 2026-08-17 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/12 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 6/14 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/8 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total

Session 9 — 2026-08-19 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/9 correct (21%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/10 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 9m total

Session 10 — 2026-08-21 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/15 correct (13%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 2/9 correct (27%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 12m total

Session 11 — 2026-08-23 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 1/9 correct (14%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 2/8 correct (23%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/10 correct (30%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 8m total

Session 12 — 2026-08-25 — 51 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 1/13 correct (10%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 3/13 correct (24%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/10 correct (29%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 10m total

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Pushing materials away from the work area
- Elopement from the work area

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
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 71% to 10% across 12 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

Previously-established responding has declined across recent sessions, warranting review of environmental and reinforcement variables.

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

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Conduct reinforcer assessment to identify current high-preference items.
- Review recent environmental or schedule changes that may be affecting performance.
- Return temporarily to a previously-mastered prompt level and re-fade systematically.

### Replacement behavior (FCT)
- If problem behavior accompanies regression, strengthen replacement-behavior training for the hypothesized function.

### Consequence strategies
- Increase reinforcement magnitude and schedule temporarily (return to CRF if needed).
- Implement more frequent maintenance probes (at least weekly) after re-mastery.

### Crisis plan
- If regression co-occurs with severe behavior (SIB, aggression, property destruction) reaching the learner's safety threshold: pause all skill-acquisition programming, implement environmental safety measures (clear the area of hazards, move peers to safe distance), and contact the supervising BCBA.
- Staff should first attempt verbal de-escalation and least-restrictive strategies; physical intervention is used only as a last resort and only by staff currently certified in the facility's crisis-prevention framework (e.g., Safety-Care, CPI, or equivalent).
- Physical intervention is applied only when specifically authorized in this learner's BIP. Many learners have contraindications (medical conditions, developmental or age-related factors, trauma history, or explicit BIP restrictions) that rule out restrictive procedures — in those cases the crisis plan defaults to verbal de-escalation, environmental safety measures, and immediate supervisor / emergency contact without physical intervention.

## 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: 12 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 39.7%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 71%, last session: 10%).
- Tantrum: mean 2.5/session (early-window mean 1.5 -> late-window mean 4.0).
- 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
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-6069
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Listener Responding + Mand
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-03-22 to 2026-04-09)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
3. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Aggression — function hypothesized: tangible

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-22 — 57 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/10 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Aggression: freq 3
  ABC (aggression): A = peer took preferred toy; B = grabbed toy back + cried; C = staff mediated and returned item

Session 2 — 2026-03-24 — 57 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/14 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  Aggression: freq 0

Session 3 — 2026-03-26 — 57 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  Aggression: freq 4
  ABC (aggression): A = peer took preferred toy; B = grabbed toy back + cried; C = staff mediated and returned item

Session 4 — 2026-03-28 — 57 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/14 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×5, I×5
  Aggression: freq 1

Session 5 — 2026-03-30 — 57 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×12
  Aggression: freq 3

Session 6 — 2026-04-01 — 57 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  Aggression: freq 1
  ABC (aggression): A = preferred iPad removed at end of break; B = screamed + reached for device; C = staff redirected to alternative

Session 7 — 2026-04-03 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 64% (primary); IOA 85% agreement
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 58% (primary); IOA 85% agreement
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 81% (primary); IOA 85% agreement
  Aggression: freq 0; IOA 85% agreement

Session 8 — 2026-04-05 — 57 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/14 correct (47%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  Aggression: freq 3

Session 9 — 2026-04-07 — 57 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 10/14 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×5, I×9
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  Aggression: freq 3

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Leaving seat without permission
- 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
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 75% with no clear trend.
- Inconsistency may indicate stimulus-control issues or motivational variability across sessions.

## Pattern Classification
variable_performance

High session-to-session variability with no clear trend suggests environmental or motivational inconsistency rather than a single programmatic issue.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Aggression: tangible
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the tangible function; behavior occurs when preferred items are restricted and is followed by access to the item.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Check for environmental variables that differ across sessions (time of day, therapist, setting).
- Standardize session structure and reinforcement delivery across therapists.

### Consequence strategies
- Implement inter-observer agreement probes to rule out measurement inconsistency.

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 9 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 66.5%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 82%, last session: 68%).
- Aggression: mean 2.0/session (early-window mean 2.3 -> late-window mean 2.0).
- IOA data: 85% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


[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-1527
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Echoic + Mand + Motor Imitation + Reading + Tact
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-04-09 to 2026-05-01)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
3. imitates 3-step motor sequences (Motor Imitation)
   Method: DTT variant
4. indicating completion ('all done', 'finished') (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
6. echoes 2-word phrases (Echoic)
   Method: DTT variant

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-09 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×14
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/9 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×4, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 4/8 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×12

Session 2 — 2026-04-11 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  tacts colors of objects: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9

Session 3 — 2026-04-13 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  echoes 2-word phrases: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10

Session 4 — 2026-04-15 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 6/14 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  echoes 2-word phrases: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×8

Session 5 — 2026-04-17 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  tacts colors of objects: 6/12 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×5, I×8
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 7/12 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×9

Session 6 — 2026-04-19 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  tacts colors of objects: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/12 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/11 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 6/13 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8

Session 7 — 2026-04-21 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×10
  tacts colors of objects: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  echoes 2-word phrases: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10

Session 8 — 2026-04-23 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 7/15 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×11
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 4/9 correct (50%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×9

Session 9 — 2026-04-25 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 5/12 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 4/9 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  sounds out CVC words: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2

Session 10 — 2026-04-27 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 4/8 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/15 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×5, I×2
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  echoes 2-word phrases: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×7

Session 11 — 2026-04-29 — 32 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×5, I×1
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Leaving seat without permission
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Plateau**: accuracy has remained near 50% for 11 sessions without meaningful improvement.
- Performance is below mastery criteria; current teaching procedure may not be effective for this learner.

## Pattern Classification
plateau

Responding has stabilized below mastery criterion without meaningful movement, indicating the current procedure is limiting further acquisition.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Modify teaching procedure — switch prompt type (e.g., from most-to-least to time delay).
- Conduct preference assessment and update reinforcer menu.
- Break the current skill into smaller component steps if possible.
- Increase practice opportunities by embedding targets in natural-environment training.

### Consequence strategies
- Check for inadvertent reinforcement of near-misses; tighten differential reinforcement.

## 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: 11 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 52.4%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 47%, last session: 52%).
- 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: initiates social interactions with peers
Curriculum Reference: Social Behavior & Social Play L2
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Developing
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: Developing

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: peer play.

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Model + immediate fade
Deliver a vocal/gestural model if no response within the motivated moment; fade to expectant look over sessions.
Current prompt level: At the developing stage, begin with a model prompt delivered during the motivated moment; fade to expectant look across sessions.

## 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 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 different adults during the teaching phase.

## Mastery Criteria
Independent use of target response across 3 natural opportunities per day for 3 consecutive days.

## 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-3610
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-07-21 to 2026-08-08)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting assistance using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
3. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. scheduling medical appointments (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Toileting accident (urine or bowel) — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-21 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 11/14 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 10/11 correct (88%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 2 — 2026-07-23 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 9/14 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 3 — 2026-07-25 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×13
  self-advocacy statements: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  scheduling medical appointments: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 4 — 2026-07-27 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×1, I×7
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/10 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 0 in-toilet / 5 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 5 — 2026-07-29 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  scheduling medical appointments: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 0 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 2 accidents

Session 6 — 2026-07-31 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 6/13 correct (42%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  scheduling medical appointments: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 6 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 7 — 2026-08-02 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  self-advocacy statements: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 4/13 correct (34%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  scheduling medical appointments: 3/8 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 6 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 8 — 2026-08-04 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 3/9 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 4/14 correct (28%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  scheduling medical appointments: 5/15 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×5, I×4
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 2 accidents

Session 9 — 2026-08-06 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/8 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 2/8 correct (27%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 2/10 correct (23%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  scheduling medical appointments: 3/14 correct (21%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 0 in-toilet / 7 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Pushing materials away from the work area
- Crying during demand presentation
- Turning away from task or staff

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (81% -> 44%) 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
Toileting accident (urine or bowel): 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
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: 9 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 62.0%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 81%, last session: 44%).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 5.1/session (early-window mean 3.3 -> late-window mean 6.3).
- 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 chaining program for the following.

Skill: clocking in at start of shift
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: clocking in at start of shift
- Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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: Total-task presentation
Prompt the learner through the entire chain every trial; fade prompts across all steps simultaneously.

Steps:
1. Arrive at the workplace by the scheduled time.
2. Locate the time clock or digital system.
3. Enter identification (ID card / badge / code).
4. Confirm the clock-in timestamp.
5. Notify the supervisor or check the day's task list.
6. Proceed to the assigned workstation.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Graduated Guidance
Hand-over-hand physical guidance with fading pressure; move to shadow, then independent.
Current prompt level: At the developing stage, provide hand-over-hand guidance at each step; reduce physical pressure across sessions.

## Error Correction Procedure
Task reset: Pause the chain; reset environmental stimuli; restart the chain from the beginning with full prompts at the previously-missed step

## Reinforcement
CRF per step (acquisition) — Continuous reinforcement for each correctly-completed step during acquisition.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed independently with 2 different adults in 2 different settings across 2 consecutive days.

## 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.


[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-3091
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math
Date range: Sessions 1–5 across 10 days (2026-02-12 to 2026-02-22)

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. counts objects 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
4. requesting preferred items using a full sentence (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-12 — 58 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/12 correct (31%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 2/11 correct (22%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  counts objects 1–20: 3/11 correct (29%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 4/12 correct (35%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×5

Session 2 — 2026-02-14 — 58 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/9 correct (40%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  counts objects 1–20: 5/14 correct (34%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×8
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 6/15 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-02-16 — 58 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/12 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/12 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×5, I×2
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×5, I×6

Session 4 — 2026-02-18 — 58 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/15 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  counts objects 1–20: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-02-20 — 58 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Reaching for materials proactively
- Smiling during reinforcement delivery

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 31% to 74% across 5 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

Accuracy ascended steeply beyond expected timeline for this learner's profile.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Advance to next skill in the sequence immediately.
- Begin generalization probes across people, settings, and materials.

### Consequence strategies
- Move to maintenance schedule (probe monthly) and redirect session time to acquisition targets.

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 5 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 5 sessions: 52.0%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 31%, last session: 74%).
- 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 DTT program for this skill.

Target: selects correct item from an array of 2
Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Developing

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects correct item from an array of 2
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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 Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
Current prompt level: At the developing stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: backpack, block, scissors
Distractor stimuli: bottle, ball
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
CRF (continuous reinforcement) — Every 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 3 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.


[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-3089
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Independent Living + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-10-13 to 2026-11-04)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. managing a budget (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
3. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. scheduling medical appointments (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-13 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 7/8 correct (91%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 10/11 correct (88%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  scheduling medical appointments: 11/13 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  doing laundry: 12/13 correct (95%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×8

Session 2 — 2026-10-15 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 8/8 correct (94%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 12/13 correct (92%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 13/15 correct (85%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×10
  doing laundry: 10/11 correct (94%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-10-17 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 12/14 correct (89%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×8
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  scheduling medical appointments: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  doing laundry: 14/15 correct (92%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×1, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-10-19 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 14/15 correct (93%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  self-advocacy statements: 11/12 correct (90%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  clocking in at start of shift: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  scheduling medical appointments: 9/11 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  doing laundry: 10/11 correct (95%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×10

Session 5 — 2026-10-21 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 10/11 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 13/14 correct (90%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×11
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  scheduling medical appointments: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×5, I×2
  doing laundry: 9/10 correct (93%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6

Session 6 — 2026-10-23 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 9/10 correct (91%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 7/8 correct (89%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 9/13 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/8 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  doing laundry: 10/11 correct (94%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4

Session 7 — 2026-10-25 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 8/9 correct (88%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 8/9 correct (92%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  doing laundry: 12/13 correct (91%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×10

Session 8 — 2026-10-27 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 13/15 correct (87%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 10/11 correct (92%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  clocking in at start of shift: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 6/8 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  doing laundry: 11/12 correct (94%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×10

Session 9 — 2026-10-29 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 11/12 correct (92%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  self-advocacy statements: 7/8 correct (91%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  doing laundry: 8/9 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2

Session 10 — 2026-10-31 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 12/14 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×11
  self-advocacy statements: 14/15 correct (97%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×5, I×5
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  scheduling medical appointments: 8/10 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  doing laundry: 9/10 correct (92%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2

Session 11 — 2026-11-02 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 12/13 correct (89%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 9/9 correct (98%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 12/15 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  doing laundry: 8/9 correct (92%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×7

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Leaving seat without permission
- Playing with non-task materials
- 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
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (91%–89%) 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: 11 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 90.3%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 91%, last session: 89%).
- 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-2332
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-01-07 to 2026-01-31)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Toileting accident (urine or bowel) — function hypothesized: escape
2. Property destruction — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-07 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 12/14 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-01-09 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 6/9 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  single-word requests for preferred items: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×5, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 3 — 2026-01-11 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/11 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 4 — 2026-01-13 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/13 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 5 — 2026-01-15 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×5, I×9
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 6 — 2026-01-17 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 4/8 correct (47%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-01-19 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/11 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 5/11 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/11 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 8 — 2026-01-21 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 5/13 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/12 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 9 — 2026-01-23 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/15 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 6/15 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/8 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/11 correct (42%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 0 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 5

Session 10 — 2026-01-25 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/12 correct (27%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 3/10 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/14 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 5

Session 11 — 2026-01-27 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 2/11 correct (18%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 3/9 correct (31%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 3/9 correct (31%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 4/10 correct (39%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 5

Session 12 — 2026-01-29 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 2/13 correct (12%); latency 5.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 3/14 correct (24%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/13 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 2/11 correct (22%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 0 in-toilet / 5 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 1 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 5

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Turning away from task or staff
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 78% to 12% across 12 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

Previously-established responding has declined across recent sessions, warranting review of environmental and reinforcement variables.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Toileting accident (urine or bowel): escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Property destruction: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Conduct reinforcer assessment to identify current high-preference items.
- Review recent environmental or schedule changes that may be affecting performance.
- Return temporarily to a previously-mastered prompt level and re-fade systematically.

### Replacement behavior (FCT)
- If problem behavior accompanies regression, strengthen replacement-behavior training for the hypothesized function.

### Consequence strategies
- Increase reinforcement magnitude and schedule temporarily (return to CRF if needed).
- Implement more frequent maintenance probes (at least weekly) after re-mastery.

### Crisis plan
- If regression co-occurs with severe behavior (SIB, aggression, property destruction) reaching the learner's safety threshold: pause all skill-acquisition programming, implement environmental safety measures (clear the area of hazards, move peers to safe distance), and contact the supervising BCBA.
- Staff should first attempt verbal de-escalation and least-restrictive strategies; physical intervention is used only as a last resort and only by staff currently certified in the facility's crisis-prevention framework (e.g., Safety-Care, CPI, or equivalent).
- Physical intervention is applied only when specifically authorized in this learner's BIP. Many learners have contraindications (medical conditions, developmental or age-related factors, trauma history, or explicit BIP restrictions) that rule out restrictive procedures — in those cases the crisis plan defaults to verbal de-escalation, environmental safety measures, and immediate supervisor / emergency contact without physical intervention.

## 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: 12 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 47.4%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 78%, last session: 12%).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 3.9/session (early-window mean 2.8 -> late-window mean 5.0).
- Property destruction: mean 3.6/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> 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: identifies place value (ones, tens)
Curriculum Reference: Math L3
Learner Profile: School-Age Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: identifies place value (ones, tens)
- Curriculum: Math L3
- Learner: School-Age 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: "What number is this?"
Variations: "Which number?"; "Tell me the number"
Presentation: Present the numeral card.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Most-to-Least (errorless)
Sequence: full physical -> partial physical -> gestural -> positional -> 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: towel, scissors, hat
Distractor stimuli: pencil, jacket, backpack, apple, cup
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Prevent errors by using high prompts from the start; fade gradually. Paired with most-to-least prompt hierarchy.

## Reinforcement Schedule
Token economy — Tokens delivered per correct response; exchanged at session end for a back-up reinforcer appropriate to the learner (for children: candy, cookies, brief leisure-time access, preferred activity, screen time, or a favorite sensory item). 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 2 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]
Design a Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: tacts abstract concepts (same/different, first/last)
Curriculum: Tact L3
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Mastered at current level

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts abstract concepts (same/different, first/last)
- Curriculum: Tact 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: "What is this?"
Variations: "Tell me what you see"; "What's that?"; "Name this"
Presentation: Present the target stimulus within visual field and ask while pointing to it.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target 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: plate, bottle, hat
Distractor stimuli: blanket, sock, backpack, scissors, napkin
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
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
80% accuracy at independent prompt level across 3 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 2 additional therapists, and in at least 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.

tacts abstract concepts (same/different, first/last)


[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: provides definitions of words
Curriculum: Intraverbal L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: provides definitions of words
- Curriculum: Intraverbal L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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
Engage the learner in a naturalistic conversation on a topic of demonstrated interest. Pause at natural turn boundaries to invite the target response.
Primary natural context: post-activity debrief.

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Model + immediate fade
Deliver a vocal/gestural model if no response within the motivated moment; fade to expectant look over sessions.
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin with a model prompt delivered during the motivated moment; fade to expectant look across sessions.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: conversation continues with adult's naturally matched reply.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 5 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 2 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.


[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-5254
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Mand + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-01-10 to 2026-01-26)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. requesting assistance using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Fecal smearing (scatolia) — function hypothesized: attention
2. Self-injurious behavior (SIB) — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-10 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  using public transportation: 8/10 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  washing hands independently: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 3 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-01-12 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  using public transportation: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  washing hands independently: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 3 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-01-14 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  using public transportation: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/14 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  washing hands independently: 8/13 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 5 (4 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 4 — 2026-01-16 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  using public transportation: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  completing assigned tasks in order: 5/10 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  washing hands independently: 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×10
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 4 (4 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 5 — 2026-01-18 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  using public transportation: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  washing hands independently: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 6 (4 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4

Session 6 — 2026-01-20 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  using public transportation: 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/13 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  washing hands independently: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 6 (5 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 7 — 2026-01-22 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/12 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×2
  using public transportation: 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 3/8 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/10 correct (32%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  washing hands independently: 4/15 correct (29%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×4, I×3
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 7 (5 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 8 — 2026-01-24 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  using public transportation: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 3/10 correct (29%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/13 correct (29%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  washing hands independently: 3/14 correct (25%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 8 (5 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 3 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 6

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Pushing materials away from the work area
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (69% -> 39%) 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
Fecal smearing (scatolia): attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): 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: 8 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 53.1%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 69%, last session: 39%).
- Fecal smearing (scatolia): mean 5.2/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 7.5).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 3.9/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 5.5).
- 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: ordering in a restaurant
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Community Participation Skills
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Near mastery
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: ordering in a restaurant
- Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation 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. Approach the counter or wait to be seated.
2. Review the menu.
3. Decide on a choice.
4. Place the order verbally (or with an AAC device).
5. Respond to clarifying questions.
6. Pay using money or a card.
7. Wait for the order and collect it.  <- 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
Full chain completed within 60s across 3 consecutive sessions with independent responding on all steps.

## 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 2 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.