An ABA instructive feedback worksheet should keep direct teaching and added presentation apart. Without that separation, a record can make secondary exposure look like acquisition, hide a required response inside a supposedly response-free procedure, or attribute learning to instructive feedback when prompts, correction, outside teaching, or repeated probes also occurred.

Use this ABA instructive feedback worksheet to keep primary teaching, secondary selection, presentation, unprompted probes, later direct teaching, access, and integrity separate. The fictional example reconciles denominators without setting a schedule or mastery rule.

Clinicians & ABA Professionals / Assessment and Treatment Planning.

Clinical boundary: Instructive feedback does not make an irrelevant, inaccessible, or unauthorized target appropriate. Use it only within individualized work led by qualified professionals. Keep ordinary speech, AAC, gesture, visual, sensory, motor, medical, safety, and relationship supports available. The learner may comment, ask, pause, decline, or remain silent. None of those responses becomes an error merely because secondary information was presented. The BACB ethics resources provide professional context, but this worksheet cannot establish consent, assent, necessity, effectiveness, coverage, school compliance, or legal compliance.

Three records, not one

In a commonly studied arrangement, a clinician directly teaches a primary target and presents additional secondary information during the trial. The learner is not required to respond to that secondary information, and no response-specific consequence is programmed for it. A later probe asks whether an unprompted secondary response emerged.

If staff ask the learner to answer the secondary item, wait for that answer as a condition of moving on, prompt it, correct it, or deliver a consequence for it, the procedure has changed. Those actions may belong in an authorized direct-teaching program, but the record should not continue calling them instructive feedback exposure.

Exposure is observable. Learning is separate.

Primary-teaching and secondary-target card

Primary teaching has to stand on its own. Record its meaningful purpose, response definition, supports, prompt and correction plan, consequence, and valid-opportunity rules. Then define each secondary target, why it is relevant, how it relates to the primary target, and how the learner can perceive it without losing access to the primary task or communication.

FieldCase-specific entryMeaningful primary-teaching purpose and plan referencePrimary antecedent, response, latency, and direct measurePrimary prompt, correction, and consequence rulesValid primary-trial requirementsSecondary target and observable later probe responseConceptual relation to the primary targetExact secondary wording, display, gesture, or modelConfirmation that no secondary response is requiredConfirmation that no secondary response-specific consequence is programmedAAC, sensory, motor, visual, language, and processing supportsQualified owner, version, effective date, and review date

Convenience is not enough to select a secondary target. Consider relevance, prerequisites, language, effort, access, cultural fit, and possible competition with the primary interaction. Check prior knowledge before attributing a later probe to the added presentation.

Versioned presentation map

A reviewer should be able to reconstruct the secondary presentation as precisely as the primary trial. State whether it occurs before the primary antecedent, after a primary response, during the consequence, or outside the trial. Define how frequently it is due, what counts as an accurate presentation, what happens after a primary error or correction, and when the secondary item is omitted.

Plan elementCurrent versionOperational descriptionRationale/evidenceException or invalid conditionOwnerPrimary target setSecondary target setAntecedent/consequence/outside-trial locationPresentation frequency or rotationExact modality and wordingRule after correct primary responseRule after primary error, prompt, or correctionNo-response-required and no-consequence ruleBreak, help, refusal, and stop pathHold, revise, direct-teach, or discontinue question

One study comparing progressive prompt delay with and without instructive feedback included three autistic children and one child with developmental delay. It tracked learning of primary and secondary targets. The small study supports separate measurement; it does not establish that every learner will acquire untaught targets or that the same procedure fits other content.

A four-participant comparison examined antecedent, consequence, and outside-trial presentation locations. Outcomes differed by participant, so location belongs in the record. It cannot explain an outcome by itself when schedule, dose, relation, or access also differs.

Trial and exposure ledger

One row represents one planned primary trial. Record whether instructive feedback was due under the schedule. If it was delivered, link the individual secondary presentations so a reviewer can distinguish event-level schedule fidelity from item-level accuracy.

Date/timeVersionPrimary trial and resultValid? reasonFeedback due?Event delivered in correct location/time?Secondary items linkedRequired response or consequence accidentally added?Access issueHelp/refusal/burdenObserveryes / noyes / no / not applicableyes / noyes / no / not applicableyes / noyes / no / not applicable

Secondary-presentation detail

Event IDSecondary targetExact planned presentationActual presentationAccurate?Learner had perceptual/language access?Spontaneous response, if anyPrompt/correction/consequence added?Valid exposure?

A valid primary trial can still contain an inaccurate secondary presentation. A wrong label, blocked image, inaudible model, missing vocabulary, or rushed statement changes exposure. A spontaneous comment remains welcome, but it should not become prompted or required.

The discrete-trial instructive-feedback study described secondary targets presented without a required response or programmed consequence and reported mixed acquisition across three autistic participants. Some secondary targets required additional direct teaching. That is a useful reminder that completed exposure does not equal learning.

Presentation frequency is a measured variable, not a universal dose

Secondary information may appear continuously or intermittently. Pair the label with valid trials, events due, events correct, and accurate items. Two items in each of ten correct events create twenty item opportunities, not ten.

A study comparing continuous and intermittent presentation schedules reported that intermittent schedules were optimal in four comparisons. The tested schedules included every trial, every other trial, and approximately every fourth trial. Those results do not create a fixed frequency for all learners or targets. “Optimal” remains tied to the study's efficiency definition, participants, and procedures.

Review period/versionValid primary trialsFeedback events dueEvents correctSecondary items dueItems accurately presentedPrimary initial correctActive timeLearner feedback/burden

Watch the primary program as well as secondary exposure. Additional statements or displays can lengthen trials, change reinforcement timing, increase language load, or compete with the primary cue. Stable primary accuracy alone does not show that the learner experienced the arrangement as acceptable.

Probe learning without quietly teaching during the test

Define probes before using them. State the antecedent, acceptable initial response forms, latency, setting, partner, materials, and support level. The initial score should occur before any prompt, model, correction, or feedback. If direct teaching follows, begin a separate record so later gains are not attributed entirely to instructive feedback.

Probe date/timeSecondary target/versionExposure count before probeElapsed intervalProbe context/antecedentValid? reasonInitial unprompted responsePrompt or direct teaching after scoreOutside exposure known?Interpretation limityes / noyes / no

A replication with two children reported idiosyncratic emergence of secondary targets. A study of response variability found more novel response combinations for two autistic children under its arrangement. These findings are promising within their exact methods, yet neither predicts broad language, play, generalization, or retention for another learner.

Probes also create exposure. Record their count, consequences, and duplicate stimuli. A response after prompted probes is not clean evidence of earlier secondary learning.

Access, choice, and burden remain visible

Secondary information should be accessible in the learner's language and communication system. A spoken fact may need a visual referent, sign, symbol, or device model; a visual display may need positioning, contrast, alternative access, or more processing time. The goal is not to force simultaneous attention to multiple channels.

Review dateCommunication formLearner description or observed responsePrimary task remained clear?Secondary information accessible?Silence/decline honored?Time, fatigue, or sensory burdenRequested changeFollow-up owner

The ASHA AAC Practice Portal describes individualized, multimodal AAC. Established tools remain available throughout. A missing device, blocked display, inaccessible vocabulary, or short wait is an implementation problem, not proof of inattention.

Keep denominators aligned with the question

Review questionNumeratorDenominatorResultDoes not establishValid primary-trial coveragevalid primary trialsplanned primary trialsprimary accuracy or feedback benefitFeedback event deliverycorrect eventsvalid events when feedback was dueaccurate item count or secondary learningSecondary presentation accuracyaccurate accessible presentationssecondary presentation opportunities in correct eventsacquisition or retentionPrimary initial accuracyinitial correct primary responsesvalid primary trialssecondary learning or causationPlanned feedback-contact yieldcorrect feedback eventsall planned primary trialswhy contact was lostSecondary probe accuracyinitial correct unprompted responsesvalid secondary probescausation, generalization, or durabilityImplementation integritycorrectly implemented componentsobservable component opportunitiesbenefit, assent, or preference

Raw counts should accompany each percentage. An event-level result of 10/12 cannot be substituted for 18/20 item-level accuracy. Likewise, five correct probes cannot be divided by the number of presentations. Exposure and probe performance are related records with different units.

Fictional community recreation-center example

In this fictional program, a learner participated in a chosen recreation-center equipment routine. Eighteen primary teaching trials were planned. One trial became invalid when the activity changed. Another was invalid because the planned visual display could not be seen from the learner's position. Sixteen valid primary trials remained.

The schedule called for instructive feedback during 12 of the valid trials. Ten events were delivered in the correct location and timing. Each correct event contained two secondary presentations, creating 20 item opportunities. Eighteen were presented accurately and accessibly. Primary initial responses were correct on 13 of 16 valid trials.

  • valid primary-trial coverage: 16 / 18 × 100 = 88.9%;
  • feedback event delivery: 10 / 12 × 100 = 83.3%;
  • secondary presentation accuracy: 18 / 20 × 100 = 90.0%;
  • primary initial accuracy: 13 / 16 × 100 = 81.3%; and
  • planned feedback-contact yield: 10 / 18 × 100 = 55.6%.

At the planned follow-up, eight secondary probes were valid and unprompted. Five had an initial correct response, so secondary probe accuracy was 5 / 8 × 100 = 62.5%. The other responses and any later direct teaching remain in separate fields.

These numbers do not show that instructive feedback caused five responses. Outside exposure, repeated probes, and the absence of an experimental comparison limit interpretation. Primary accuracy also cannot rule out added time, access, or burden.

Fifteen observations were scored across eight implementation components, producing 120 opportunities. One hundred thirteen were correct and seven were mismatches. Integrity was 113 / 120 × 100 = 94.2%.

Evidence layerFictional resultBounded interpretationValid primary coverage16/18Two system conditions prevented valid teachingCorrect feedback events10/12 dueTwo scheduled events departed from the planAccurate secondary items18/20Event delivery and item accuracy differPrimary initial response13/16Does not answer secondary learningPlanned contact yield10/18Keeps invalidity and schedule loss visibleSecondary probes5/8Small unprompted probe sample, not causationIntegrity113/120Seven provider-side mismatches require reviewLearner experiencedirect record requiredAccuracy cannot establish acceptability

Begin with the two invalid primary trials, two missed or altered events, two inaccurate secondary presentations, three primary responses outside the initial-correct definition, three secondary probe responses outside the correct definition, seven fidelity mismatches, and the learner's account. The arithmetic does not decide whether to continue, change frequency, move presentation location, teach directly, or stop.

Implementation-integrity record

ObservationCorrect versionValid primary trial recognizedFeedback due rule correctLocation/timing correctSecondary item accurateNo response/consequence requiredAAC/access preservedHelp/refusal honoredCorrect componentsOpportunitiesNotes

Define each component before observation. A mismatch may reveal ambiguous wording, material drift, insufficient training, schedule confusion, inaccessible presentation, or accidental prompting. It is not automatically evidence about learner motivation or capacity.

Review, transition, and stopping record

FieldReview entryVersions, primary/secondary targets, settings, partners, and datesMeaningful purpose and continued authorizationEvent schedule, actual exposure, and accessPrimary performance, time, and implementation integrityUnprompted secondary probes and elapsed intervalsPrompted/direct teaching kept outside the feedback resultLearner choice, assent/dissent, burden, and unwanted effectsPrior/outside exposure and causal limitationsHold / revise / compare / direct-teach / discontinue questionQualified decision owner, rationale, and next review date

The Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts addresses rights, involvement, consent, assent, competence, privacy, and documentation. The CASP ABA Practice Guidelines access page provides individualized-planning context. Neither endorses this form or a case decision.

A pause or revision is warranted when secondary information is inaccessible, the primary program becomes less clear, staff begin requiring the secondary response, or exposure fidelity is unstable. Learner-reported burden, probes that become de facto teaching, weak target relevance, and unsupportive direct data also reopen the plan. Moving a priority secondary target into explicit teaching may be appropriate; dropping a low-value target may also be appropriate. The label “instructive feedback” should never keep an unsuitable arrangement in place.

Related resources

Sources

The studies vary in participants, targets, locations, schedules, prompts, probes, and outcomes. Their findings support separating teaching, exposure, and testing, not a universal target, frequency, location, criterion, or expected effect.