An ABA goal prioritization worksheet should preserve who wants each goal, why it matters, what evidence supports it, what burdens or dependencies are known, and who owns the final decision. It should not convert client, caregiver, and clinician perspectives into an unlabeled vote. The matrix below keeps those voices separate and gives disagreements, deferrals, and unknowns a dated path to resolution.

Clinicians & ABA Professionals / Assessment and Treatment Planning.

A completed matrix is a decision record, not a treatment plan. It cannot establish capacity, assent, clinical necessity, medical necessity, funding eligibility, or a universal order for goals. A qualified clinician still has to interpret current assessment and outcome evidence with the client and relevant stakeholders, then document the approved plan through the applicable process.

Define the decision before ranking anything

State what is being decided before filling the matrix. “Choose goals” is too broad. A reconstructable question could ask which two new goals, if any, should enter the next plan period while the current communication-support goal continues. The record should name the plan period, existing commitments, actual staffing and opportunity constraints, and the person authorized to approve a change.

The BCBA Test Content Outline, Sixth Edition identifies the interpretation of assessment data to prioritize socially significant, client-informed, and culturally responsive procedures and goals. The BACB's test-content outline page identifies the current outline. Examination content describes entry-level knowledge. It does not supply a ranking algorithm or endorse this worksheet.

The current Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts, available through the BACB's ethics-code page, addresses client rights and welfare, assessment, stakeholder obligations, conflicts, informed consent, intervention selection, data use, and continual evaluation. The exact duties in a case also depend on competence, licensure, law, payer terms, organizational policy, and the facts. The CASP ABA Practice Guidelines Version 3 access page identifies a licensed autism-treatment guideline intended to inform assessment and treatment decisions. This article does not reproduce the licensed guideline or claim that the matrix is a CASP form.

Keep each voice separate from evidence and decision authority

A person can strongly prefer a goal while the team still lacks an adequate assessment, accessible teaching conditions, or authority to begin it. A caregiver can identify a serious daily burden without speaking for the client. A clinician can identify a dependency or safety question without taking ownership of the person's priorities. Labeling these inputs prevents one kind of evidence from silently replacing another.

An article on skill-acquisition goals and meaningful outcomes argues for social validity, quality of life, client preferences, and self-determination in programmatic decisions. Research seeking autistic adults' input on behavioral-intervention goals and practices also found that some commonly discussed goals were viewed quite differently by respondents. Neither source provides a universal list for an individual client. They strengthen the case for asking rather than assuming.

Work on shared decision-making during autism treatment planning describes discussion of options, advantages and disadvantages, preferences, and collaborative integration. A perspective article on autistic client autonomy and shared decision-making addresses mental-health treatment rather than prescribing ABA practice, but it illustrates why a goal conflict should not automatically be resolved in favor of a proxy. A community-partnered study of high-priority outcomes for autistic adults identified a broad set of valued outcome domains and a need to adapt measurement with autistic adults. Population findings can open questions; they cannot rank one person's goals.

Copyable decision frame

FieldEntryClient-selected purpose for this reviewDecision to be made and plan periodCurrent approved goals that remain activeNumber of new goals the team can responsibly support, with evidenceDirect-client communication method and access supportsClient, caregiver, clinician, and other stakeholder rolesAssessment, outcome, and source-record versionsConstraints that must not be treated as client preferenceConsent, assent, authorization, or legal-representative questionsQualified decision owner and required consultationReview date, version, and next reconsideration date

Communication access belongs before preference collection. ASHA Communication Access advises asking about communication preferences, communicating directly with the person, confirming understanding, allowing processing time, and supporting different communication methods. Use the person's established communication system and document the support provided. A missing accessible opportunity is not a neutral answer.

Candidate-goal register

Use the ABA goal prioritization worksheet to describe each candidate as a purpose and possible outcome before writing a final operational goal. That order keeps the team from polishing one preferred option while leaving alternatives vague.

Candidate IDClient-described purposeDraft outcome or participation changeCurrent evidence and versionWho proposed it?What is still unknown?Within current scope?yes / no / unclearyes / no / unclearyes / no / unclearyes / no / unclearyes / no / unclear

Do not turn diagnosis, age, convenience, typical appearance, funder preference, available curriculum, or staff confidence into a client priority. Those facts may affect scope or feasibility and should be recorded in their own fields.

Attributed perspective matrix

Use the response form selected with each person. Words such as high, medium, and low need anchors that respondents understand. A narrative response or “not asked accessibly” may be more accurate than a rating.

CandidateDirect client: priority and reasonCaregiver: priority and reasonClinician: relevance and evidenceOther stakeholder, if relevantAccess/support usedConflict or uncertainty

Do not average these columns. They represent different knowledge and obligations. When a supporter helps interpret an idiosyncratic response, identify the supporter, the observed response, the interpretation, and remaining uncertainty. Do not relabel a joint interpretation as the client's independent statement.

Feasibility, burden, and interaction review

CandidateExpected benefit and evidenceBurden or unwanted effect to monitorOpportunity and staffing realityPrerequisite or dependencyInteraction with current goals and supportsFeasibility statussupported / pending / blockedsupported / pending / blockedsupported / pending / blockedsupported / pending / blockedsupported / pending / blocked

Feasibility is not worth. A high-priority goal can remain high priority when staffing, assessment, setting access, or another dependency delays implementation. Name the barrier, owner, and next review instead of lowering the client's rating to make the table look resolved.

Disagreement and clarification record

CandidatePoints of agreementPoints of disagreementFacts versus interpretationsWhose rights or obligations are involved?Clarification or consultation neededDate and owner

A disagreement may reveal different definitions, different time horizons, inaccessible communication, conflicting duties, a missing assessment, or a real difference in values. Record dissent without making the dissenter a problem to extinguish. If an immediate safety, abuse, medical, legal, or scope concern appears, use the applicable response pathway rather than waiting for the matrix to be finished.

Decision, deferral, and follow-up ledger

CandidateStatusRationale with separately attributed evidenceConditions before startApproved plan/version referencePerson told in an accessible wayReconsideration date and ownerselect / refine / defer / refer / decline / pendingselect / refine / defer / refer / decline / pendingselect / refine / defer / refer / decline / pendingselect / refine / defer / refer / decline / pendingselect / refine / defer / refer / decline / pending

“Deferred” is not a storage bin. Record what must change, who will act, when the item returns, and how the client will be updated. If the goal is outside ABA scope or another profession's expertise is needed, name the consultation or referral without promising an outcome.

Fictional worked example

The following record is fictional teaching material. It contains no real client, family, practice, assessment, or treatment information and does not recommend these goals.

A fictional review has five candidate goals, labeled G1 through G5, and three planned perspective sources: direct client, caregiver, and clinician. That creates 5 × 3 = 15 perspective cells. The direct-client and caregiver columns each contain five accessible, substantive entries. The clinician column contains four substantive entries and one “evidence review pending” state. Fourteen of 15 cells therefore have substantive perspective evidence: 14 / 15 × 100 = 93.3% perspective-cell coverage.

CandidateDirect-client entryCaregiver entryClinician entryCurrent dispositionG1, request a pause with the person's chosen communicationhigh, client-described purposehigh, routine relevancehigh, current evidence availablerefine for plan reviewG2, complete a household sequencemediumhighmediumdefer with opportunity checkG3, make a preferred community purchasehighhighhigh, dependency documentedrefine for plan reviewG4, change an uncomfortable group routinehighlowevidence review pendingkeep open; accessible clarification and evidence review due before the dated meetingG5, tolerate a longer staff-selected tasklowmediummediumdo not select; explain and revisit if context changes

The fictional team has documented capacity to consider two new goals while preserving an existing communication-support goal. G1 and G3 move to qualified plan review because the client endorses them, the relevant evidence is available, and the known conditions appear feasible. The worksheet does not claim that three matching entries elected them.

G4 remains visibly open. It is a high direct-client priority, but the clinician evidence review is unfinished and the perspectives differ. The record assigns an accessible clarification conversation and evidence review before a dated meeting. The capacity limit does not erase that obligation. The 93.3% figure says only that one planned cell is still pending; it is not consensus, agreement, validity, goal quality, treatment readiness, or a score for the team.

Turn patterns into questions, not ranks

Useful patterns include a client priority with no accessible assessment, a feasible goal with unclear benefit, an option that conflicts with another support, repeated proxy-client disagreement, or deferrals that never return. Each pattern should generate a question and owner, not an automatic rank.

Reopen the record when the client's priorities, communication access, assessment evidence, capacity, risks, burdens, environment, payer terms, consent status, or treatment purpose changes. Preserve the old version. A clean-looking matrix cannot substitute for the conversation it is meant to document.

Related resources

Sources