[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 Natural Environment Teaching program for the following.

Skill: takes turns during structured activities
Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Mastered at current level

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: takes turns during structured activities
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
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 mastered stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: turn is delivered; game continues.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 5 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 2 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 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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

takes turns during structured activities


[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: sorts items into 2–3 categories
Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: sorts items into 2–3 categories
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Sequence: independent -> gestural -> positional -> partial physical -> full physical
Current prompt level: At the near mastery stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

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

## Error Correction Procedure
Return to previous prompt level that produced success -> successful response -> re-attempt at target prompt level.

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

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

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

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


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

[User]
Design a chaining program for the following.

Skill: unloading the dishwasher
Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
Learner Level: Adult Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: unloading the dishwasher
- Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

Steps:
1. Open the dishwasher once the cycle is complete.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Unload the top rack first (cups, glasses, small items).
3. Put cups and glasses away in the correct cabinet.
4. Unload the utensil basket.
5. Put utensils away in the drawer.
6. Unload the bottom rack (plates, bowls, larger items).
7. Put plates and bowls away in the correct cabinet.
8. Close the dishwasher door.

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

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

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

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 3 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]
Review this session log and produce a structured clinical interpretation.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-1774
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Mand + Motor Imitation + Tact
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-02-07 to 2026-02-27)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. imitates 3-step motor sequences (Motor Imitation)
   Method: DTT variant
2. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
4. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-07 — 44 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 7/8 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/13 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-02-09 — 44 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 3/10 correct (28%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  tacts colors of objects: 3/9 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 3/9 correct (35%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-02-11 — 44 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 10/12 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  tacts colors of objects: 10/12 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 4 — 2026-02-13 — 44 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/11 correct (22%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 3/9 correct (30%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 3/9 correct (28%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 5 — 2026-02-15 — 44 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 9/10 correct (87%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/12 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 9/11 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 6 — 2026-02-17 — 44 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/15 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×14
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/8 correct (28%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 4/15 correct (29%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 3/8 correct (33%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-02-19 — 44 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/9 correct (89%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  tacts colors of objects: 10/12 correct (86%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 8 — 2026-02-21 — 44 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/11 correct (33%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/13 correct (29%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 4/13 correct (28%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 3/11 correct (30%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 9 — 2026-02-23 — 44 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 13/15 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 8/9 correct (88%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/10 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 10 — 2026-02-25 — 44 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/12 correct (29%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/9 correct (23%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 4/15 correct (27%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Leaving seat without permission
- 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
- **Generalization failure**: strong performance in training context but failure to generalize to novel conditions.
- Skill may be under restricted stimulus control.

## Pattern Classification
generalization_failure

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
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: 10 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 59.7%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 83%, last session: 29%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 2.1/session (early-window mean 1.7 -> late-window mean 2.3).
- 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
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-9514
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Independent Living + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-04-23 to 2026-05-11)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
5. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Self-injurious behavior (SIB) — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-23 — 46 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×1
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  doing laundry: 6/8 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  self-advocacy statements: 10/14 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 2 — 2026-04-25 — 46 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/12 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  doing laundry: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×11
  self-advocacy statements: 9/12 correct (74%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×1
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 3 — 2026-04-27 — 46 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  doing laundry: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 4 — 2026-04-29 — 46 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/10 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  doing laundry: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 5 — 2026-05-01 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  clocking in at start of shift: 42% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 53% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  doing laundry: 51% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 47% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  self-advocacy statements: 60% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5; IOA 86% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-05-03 — 46 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/14 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  doing laundry: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/11 correct (33%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 7

Session 7 — 2026-05-05 — 46 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/13 correct (27%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  doing laundry: 5/14 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5
  ABC (self-injurious behavior (sib)): A = asked to finish dressing task; B = kicked at materials; C = task paused for 3 min

Session 8 — 2026-05-07 — 46 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 3/13 correct (20%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/15 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  doing laundry: 5/14 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/15 correct (27%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 4/10 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 7
  ABC (self-injurious behavior (sib)): A = worksheet task presented; B = refused + pushed materials away; C = task removed for 2 min

Session 9 — 2026-05-09 — 46 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 1/8 correct (15%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 3/14 correct (22%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  doing laundry: 3/15 correct (22%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 1/10 correct (11%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  self-advocacy statements: 3/11 correct (31%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 8

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Turning away from task or staff
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)
- Elopement from the work area
- Crying during demand presentation

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (77% -> 15%) 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
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- **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
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 42.7%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 77%, last session: 15%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 5.1/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 6.7).
- IOA data: 86% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Skill: identifies own name in print
Curriculum: Reading L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: identifies own name in print
- Curriculum: Reading L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
Current prompt level: At the near mastery stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: jacket, block, crayon
Distractor stimuli: apple, hat
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
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 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: copies all upper-case letters from model
Curriculum: Writing L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: copies all upper-case letters from model
- Curriculum: Writing L2
- Learner: Early 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: "Write the target."
Variations: "Trace this"; "Copy this"; "Write {word}"
Presentation: Provide pencil and paper; deliver a clear verbal instruction naming the target letter or word.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Time Delay (progressive)
Sequence: 0s delay -> 2s delay -> 4s delay -> 6s delay -> 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 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: Q, N, Z
Distractor stimuli: D, C, U, K
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
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
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 3 additional therapists, and in at least 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.

copies all upper-case letters from model


[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-2860
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Mand + Reading + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–6 across 12 days (2026-05-23 to 2026-06-04)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. indicating 'all done' with a step or activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
6. ordering in a restaurant (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Verbal aggression — function hypothesized: escape
2. Non-compliance — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-23 — 49 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/12 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 2 — 2026-05-25 — 49 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  ordering in a restaurant: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 1
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 3 — 2026-05-27 — 49 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  sounds out CVC words: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 9/14 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  ordering in a restaurant: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 7
  Non-compliance: freq 6

Session 4 — 2026-05-29 — 49 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×13
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/12 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/15 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×5, I×9
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 7
  Non-compliance: freq 7

Session 5 — 2026-05-31 — 49 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 8/11 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×8
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  Verbal aggression: freq 3
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 6 — 2026-06-02 — 49 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 10/14 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 6/8 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 6/13 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  Verbal aggression: freq 3
  Non-compliance: freq 2

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')
- Attempts at property destruction (throwing materials, swiping items off the surface)
- Crying during demand presentation
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)

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

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Verbal aggression: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Non-compliance: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 6 sessions: 69.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 68%, last session: 75%).
- Verbal aggression: mean 3.8/session (early-window mean 1.5 -> late-window mean 3.0).
- Non-compliance: mean 3.8/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 2.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill Target: spontaneously comments on events
Curriculum Reference: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously comments on events
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Time Delay
Wait a brief interval (0->2->4 s) for independent response before delivering a model or verbal prompt.
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

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

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 2 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 2 different adults during the teaching phase.

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

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

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


[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: ordering in a restaurant
Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
Learner Level: Adult Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: ordering in a restaurant
- Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

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.

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
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 3 different settings and with 2 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

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

Target: selects items by function (What do you drink from?)
Curriculum: LRFFC L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by function (What do you drink from?)
- Curriculum: LRFFC L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Time Delay (progressive)
Sequence: 0s delay -> 2s delay -> 4s delay -> 6s delay -> independent
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: sock, crayon, apple
Distractor stimuli: key, ball
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
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 2 additional therapists, and in at least 2 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.

selects items by function (What do you drink from?)


[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: tacts shapes (circle, square, triangle)
Curriculum: Tact L2
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts shapes (circle, square, triangle)
- Curriculum: Tact L2
- 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 shape?"
Variations: "What shape is this?"; "Tell me the shape"
Presentation: Present a clearly-shaped object or shape card and ask while pointing to it.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Time Delay (progressive)
Sequence: 0s delay -> 2s delay -> 4s delay -> 6s delay -> 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 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: oval, heart, circle
Distractor stimuli: triangle, square, star, diamond
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Return to previous prompt level that produced success -> successful response -> re-attempt at target prompt level.

## 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
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.


[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-8858
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading + Social Behavior
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-03-19 to 2026-04-08)

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-19 — 33 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 7/9 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×13
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 13/15 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×11

Session 2 — 2026-03-21 — 33 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/12 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/12 correct (86%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5

Session 3 — 2026-03-23 — 33 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/12 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×7

Session 4 — 2026-03-25 — 33 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/11 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/10 correct (44%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×2

Session 5 — 2026-03-27 — 33 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/11 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/10 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/13 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×11

Session 6 — 2026-03-29 — 33 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/11 correct (41%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/8 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5

Session 7 — 2026-03-31 — 33 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 7/14 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/12 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1

Session 8 — 2026-04-02 — 33 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×5, I×7
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5

Session 9 — 2026-04-04 — 33 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/12 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×2

Session 10 — 2026-04-06 — 33 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 12/15 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×5, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 11/15 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×5, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Motivating-operation shift**: mid-log dip in responding followed by recovery suggests reinforcer-value change.
- Possible satiation with current reinforcer; preference reassessment indicated.

## Pattern Classification
motivating_operation_shift

A mid-log dip followed by recovery maps onto a motivating-operation change rather than a skill issue.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Conduct preference assessment to identify a currently-valued reinforcer.
- Program MO-establishing operations (deprivation for target reinforcer) before teaching sessions.
- Rotate reinforcers to prevent satiation.

### Consequence strategies
- Adjust reinforcement density to match current MO level.

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 58.7%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 79%, last session: 59%).
- 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-6177
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading + Social Behavior + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-03-22 to 2026-04-07)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT
5. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
6. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-22 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 14/15 correct (92%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 11/12 correct (89%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/10 correct (90%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 11/14 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 2 — 2026-03-24 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 12/13 correct (94%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/8 correct (92%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/13 correct (89%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/9 correct (89%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/9 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 3 — 2026-03-26 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 12/12 correct (98%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 15/15 correct (98%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×4, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/10 correct (90%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  identifies numerals 1–20: 12/14 correct (89%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 4 — 2026-03-28 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 13/14 correct (91%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 15/15 correct (98%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/8 correct (92%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/11 correct (89%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 5 — 2026-03-30 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/11 correct (96%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 14/14 correct (98%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/13 correct (90%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 14/15 correct (92%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 11/13 correct (86%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×5, I×2
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 6 — 2026-04-01 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/10 correct (98%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  single-word requests for preferred items: 12/12 correct (98%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/13 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 12/12 correct (96%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/12 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 7 — 2026-04-03 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 12/13 correct (94%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/9 correct (98%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/12 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 14/15 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×5, I×7
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/9 correct (88%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 8 — 2026-04-05 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/8 correct (98%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 15/15 correct (98%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/13 correct (94%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 12/13 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/8 correct (85%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  Tantrum: freq 0

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Leaving seat without permission
- Playing with non-task materials

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (92%–98%) 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.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Tantrum: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 95.0%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 92%, last session: 98%).
- Tantrum: mean 0.0/session (early-window mean 0.0 -> late-window mean 0.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: tacts common actions (running, eating, sleeping)
Curriculum: Tact L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts common actions (running, eating, sleeping)
- Curriculum: Tact L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What is he doing?"
Variations: "What action?"; "What is she doing?"; "What is happening here?"
Presentation: Present an action picture, video clip, or live demonstration.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Sequence: independent -> gestural -> positional -> partial physical -> full physical
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: pouring, jumping, eating
Distractor stimuli: brushing, singing
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
80% accuracy at independent prompt level across 3 sessions.

## 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 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.

tacts common actions (running, eating, sleeping)


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

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

Skill: selects correct item from an array of 2
Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Approaching mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

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

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

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

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: glue, jacket, towel
Distractor stimuli: apple, hat
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 2 additional therapists, and in at least 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]
I need a DTT program for this skill.

Target: tacts community helpers and their roles
Curriculum: Tact L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts community helpers and their roles
- Curriculum: Tact L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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: Least-to-Most
Sequence: independent -> gestural -> positional -> partial physical -> full physical
Current prompt level: At the generalization 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: napkin, hat, jacket
Distractor stimuli: blanket, plate, ball, apple, spoon
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

## Reinforcement Schedule
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
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 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


[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-2501
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-07-07 to 2026-07-23)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-07 — 30 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/14 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 2 — 2026-07-09 — 30 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×1, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×11
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×3, I×2
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 3 — 2026-07-11 — 30 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/9 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 4 — 2026-07-13 — 30 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/13 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 5 — 2026-07-15 — 30 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/15 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×1, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/13 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (toileting accident (urine or bowel)): A = during demand sequence at the work table; B = voided (urine) without signaling need; C = staff paused programming, changed clothing, resumed after 10 min

Session 6 — 2026-07-17 — 30 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/14 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×5, I×0
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 7 — 2026-07-19 — 30 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/8 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/13 correct (30%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 5 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (toileting accident (urine or bowel)): A = end of 90-minute block without scheduled toileting; B = soiled (bowel) at the work table; C = staff initiated clean-up and hygiene routine; program paused

Session 8 — 2026-07-21 — 30 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 3/14 correct (22%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/12 correct (33%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 5 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

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

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
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (79% -> 38%) 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: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- **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: 8 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 62.0%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 79%, last session: 38%).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 3.1/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> 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]
Design a Natural Environment Teaching program for the following.

Skill: spontaneously asks questions about the environment
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L2
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously asks questions about the environment
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Verbal fill-in
Deliver a partial phrase and pause; learner completes the vocal response.
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Independent use with a peer in unstructured free play across 2 consecutive sessions.

## 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.

spontaneously asks questions about the environment


[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: tacts common actions (running, eating, sleeping)
Curriculum Reference: Tact L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Emerging
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts common actions (running, eating, sleeping)
- Curriculum: Tact L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What is he doing?"
Variations: "What action?"; "What is she doing?"; "What is happening here?"
Presentation: Present an action picture, video clip, or live demonstration.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Most-to-Least (errorless)
Sequence: full physical -> partial physical -> gestural -> positional -> independent
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: jumping, eating, clapping
Distractor stimuli: writing, singing
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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