An ABA simultaneous prompting worksheet should keep two records apart: what happened during immediately prompted teaching and what happened when the learner had an unprompted chance to respond. A correct response during teaching may show that the support was delivered and usable. It does not, by itself, show independent acquisition.

Use this ABA simultaneous prompting worksheet to define the procedure, reconcile teaching coverage, review prompted performance, and inspect separately scheduled daily probes. The copyable fields and fictional example make the denominators visible without turning one arrangement into a universal protocol.

Clinicians & ABA Professionals / Assessment and Treatment Planning.

Clinical boundary: A qualified professional should select, authorize, and review any response-prompting procedure through an individualized process. Preserve ordinary speech, AAC, gesture, sensory, motor, visual, medical, safety, relationship, and processing-time supports. Honor accessible help, break, stop, refusal, and alternative responses. This worksheet cannot establish consent, assent, necessity, effectiveness, mastery, coverage, or legal compliance. Current BACB ethics resources provide professional context, not a case decision.

Keep teaching trials and probes in separate lanes

In simultaneous prompting, the practitioner presents the target cue and then delivers the assessed controlling prompt without a programmed delay. The prompt is intended to make a correct teaching response likely. That feature makes teaching efficient in some studied arrangements, but it also means the teaching trial does not offer the same unprompted opportunity used to assess independence.

A daily probe is a separate assessment event. It is commonly arranged before teaching for the relevant target and begins without the controlling prompt. The response definition, initial response interval, consequence, correction, and any later support must be specified. If a prompt appears before the initial probe score, the record cannot silently call the response independent.

That separation is the organizing rule. It should survive every summary.

The literature illustrates this separation in different applications, including daily-probe arrangements, tact instruction, telehealth implementation, and video-model prompts. These studies have small and specific samples. They support precise documentation; they do not prescribe the same prompt, target, trial count, probe schedule, response interval, or mastery rule for everyone.

Skill-purpose and target card

Begin with the meaningful reason for teaching the skill. Then connect every code to an observable definition. A broad label such as “communication” cannot tell another reviewer which cue was presented, which response counted, what access was available, or whether a trial was valid.

FieldCase-specific entryMeaningful skill purpose and authorized plan referenceTarget, cue, materials, setting, and natural contextObservable initial response and latency boundaryAccessible response forms that count as equivalentControlling-prompt assessment and selected promptPrompted-correct, incorrect, no-response, and other codesTeaching consequence and correction rulesDaily-probe consequence and post-score support rulesValid-opportunity and invalidity rulesHelp, break, refusal, alternative, and stop responsesQualified owner, version, effective date, and review date

Do not assume one response form is more independent because it looks or sounds different. A device selection, sign, gesture, eye-gaze response, spoken response, or other accessible form may meet the definition when the team has established it. The ASHA AAC Practice Portal describes communication as individualized and multimodal. The learner should not lose communication access during a probe to make the condition look unprompted.

Access belongs in the definition. It is not an afterthought.

Versioned teaching-and-probe map

Procedure names are too compressed for implementation. Write the actual sequence for teaching and for probes. Give each revision an effective date so records from different versions are not pooled as though the conditions were unchanged.

VersionEventCue and materialsPrompt timing/topographyInitial response windowConsequence/correctionAccess supportsValidity ruleSchedule/locationOwnerTeaching trialimmediate after cueDaily probenone before initial scorebefore relevant teachingMaintenance/generalization probe

A comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant prompt delay helps clarify the timing difference: simultaneous prompting places the controlling prompt immediately after the cue, while a time-delay arrangement inserts a defined interval. That description does not make either procedure generally superior. If implementation begins to include a delay, record a version change rather than continuing to label the altered procedure simultaneous prompting.

Small timing changes can alter the question being asked. Version them plainly.

Teaching-trial ledger

One row represents one planned teaching trial. Keep planned but invalid events in the delivery record. A missing stimulus, inaccessible device, wrong target, unavailable reinforcer, interrupted trial, or prompt that was not delivered as defined is a system or implementation event, not a learner error.

Date/timeVersionTarget/cuePlanned positionValid? reasonPrompt duePrompt delivered as defined?Initial learner response/latencyTeaching outcomeCorrection/supportHelp/refusal/breakAccess/contextImplementeryes / noyes / noyes / noprompted correct / incorrect / no response / otheryes / noyes / noyes / noyes / noyes / noyes / no

Record the initial response even when correction produces a later correct response. “Correct after correction” can be useful implementation information, but it cannot replace the teaching outcome or be moved into the daily-probe numerator. Likewise, a correctly delivered prompt and a correct prompted response use different denominators.

Both observations may matter. Their labels should stay honest.

Teaching-delivery summary

Version/periodPlanned trialsInvalid trialsValid trialsPrompt due on valid trialsCorrectly delivered promptsPrompted-correct responsesIncorrect/no responsePlanned prompt-delivery yieldNotes

This table can reveal a program that appears strong only because invalid trials disappeared. It can also show high prompt-delivery integrity with limited participation, or high prompted accuracy alongside weak probe responding. Each pattern calls for review, not automatic continuation.

Start with the missing exposure. Then examine learner performance.

Daily-probe ledger

Schedule probes independently from the teaching-trial count. Identify whether the probe occurred before teaching for that target and whether unintended exposure, materials, partner behavior, or prompt leakage changed the opportunity.

Date/timeVersionTarget/cueBefore target teaching?Valid? reasonInitial unprompted response/latencyInitial probe scorePrompt or support after scoreIntervening exposureHelp/refusal/breakAccess/contextObserveryes / noyes / noindependent correct / incorrect / no response / other

An initial correct response is independent only under the case's defined probe conditions. It does not establish generalization to other people, materials, places, examples, or response forms. A later prompted response belongs in the support record. If safety or access requires immediate help, provide it and mark the probe invalid or supported under the plan rather than withholding necessary support.

The first score is one observation. Later help remains available.

Probe summary

Version/periodPlanned probesInvalid probesValid probesInitial independent correctIncorrectNo response/otherValid-probe accuracyPlanned-probe yieldInterpretation limits

Daily does not have to mean the same clock time, partner, or context, and “probe” does not guarantee an equivalent opportunity. Describe those differences. If probe frequency, timing, or target rotation changes, give the schedule a new version.

Comparable records need comparable opportunities. Note meaningful departures.

Access, participation, and burden record

A quiet correct response may be easy to miss. A fast prompted response may reflect prompt salience rather than preference. Directly record what the learner communicated and what the environment required.

Review dateVersion/contextCommunication and access availableLearner choice or descriptionHelp/break/stop honored?Fatigue, pain, distress, or sensory effectPrompt or probe burdenRequested changeFollow-up owner

Do not infer assent from stillness, task completion, or correct responding. If the target, prompt, or probing routine competes with communication access, produces repeated distress, or no longer serves a meaningful purpose, pause and bring the question back to the authorized decision process.

Participation is not a proxy for preference. Ask and listen directly.

Use separate denominators for separate questions

Review questionNumeratorDenominatorResultDoes not establishValid teaching coveragevalid teaching trialsplanned teaching trialslearning or fidelityPrompt-delivery accuracyprompts delivered as definedvalid trials with prompt duelearner independencePrompted teaching accuracyprompted-correct responsestrials with correctly delivered promptunprompted acquisitionPlanned prompt-delivery yieldprompts delivered as definedall planned teaching trialswhy delivery was lostValid probe coveragevalid probesplanned probesprobe accuracyIndependent probe accuracyinitial independent correctvalid probesmaintenance or generalizationPlanned-probe yieldinitial independent correctplanned probesmastery or causationImplementation fidelitycorrectly implemented componentsobservable component opportunitiesassent, benefit, or preference

Pair every percentage with raw counts, version, period, and validity rule. Pooling teaching and probe responses creates a larger number while erasing the exact question simultaneous prompting requires the reviewer to answer.

The denominator tells the reader what was possible. Keep it close.

Fictional community art-studio example

In this fictional example, a client helped choose a community art-studio routine. The target involved locating a labeled supply area using the person's established response mode. The example is arithmetic, not a recommendation for the target, prompt, or schedule.

The team planned 24 teaching trials. One was invalid because the wrong label was displayed; another was invalid because the communication device was unavailable. That left 22 valid trials, so valid teaching coverage was 22 / 24 × 100 = 91.7%. The controlling prompt was delivered as defined on 20 valid trials: 20 / 22 × 100 = 90.9%. Eighteen responses were correct following those correctly delivered prompts: 18 / 20 × 100 = 90.0%. Across every planned trial, prompt-delivery yield was 20 / 24 × 100 = 83.3%.

The daily-probe record began with a different denominator. Twelve probes were planned. One was invalid because unintended teaching had already occurred. Eleven remained valid, or 11 / 12 × 100 = 91.7% valid coverage. Seven initial responses were independently correct: 7 / 11 × 100 = 63.6% valid-probe accuracy and 7 / 12 × 100 = 58.3% planned-probe yield.

Evidence layerRaw resultPercentageBounded readingValid teaching coverage22/2491.7%Two system-invalid trials remain visibleCorrect prompt delivery20/2290.9%Two valid trials had prompt-delivery mismatchesPrompted teaching accuracy18/2090.0%Describes correct responding after defined promptsPlanned prompt-delivery yield20/2483.3%Includes lost and mismatched deliveryValid probe coverage11/1291.7%One probe was invalid after unintended teachingIndependent probe accuracy7/1163.6%Describes initial unprompted responses in valid probesPlanned-probe yield7/1258.3%Keeps the invalid planned probe visible

The 90.0% prompted teaching result and 63.6% independent probe result do not conflict. They answer different questions. Neither percentage proves mastery, retention, generalization, preference, assent, or a causal treatment effect.

This is a descriptive record. It is not a verdict.

Implementation-integrity record

ObservationCorrect version availableCue/material accurateValidity checkedPrompt immediate and accurateResponse coded by timingConsequence/correction accurateAAC/access preservedHelp/refusal honoredCorrect componentsOpportunitiesNotes

The fictional integrity sample used 14 observations across eight components, producing 112 opportunities. There were 105 correct components and seven mismatches, which reconcile to 112. Fidelity was 105 / 112 × 100 = 93.8%. Review the mismatches by component and version. A single percentage cannot show whether the prompt was late, a probe was contaminated, access was missing, or a help response was not honored.

Component-level notes supply that missing detail. Preserve them.

Maintenance, generalization, and decision record

FieldReview entryVersions, targets, settings, partners, and dates reviewedMeaningful purpose and continued authorizationTeaching coverage, prompt delivery, and prompted outcomesProbe schedule, validity, and initial independent outcomesMaintenance interval and intervening exposureGeneralization examples, people, settings, or response formsAccess, assent/dissent, choice, burden, and unwanted effectsInvalidity and fidelity limitsRetain / revise / assess / fade / pause / stop questionQualified owner, rationale, version, and next review date

The Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts places rights, involvement, competence, confidentiality, documentation, and responsible data use within professional duties. The BACB test-content outlines and Sixth Edition BCBA outline provide current professional learning context for prompting, fading, integrity, maintenance, generalization, and data-based decisions. The CASP ABA Practice Guidelines access page provides broader practice context. None selects a procedure or validates a completed form.

Reopen the arrangement when the purpose changes, probes are routinely contaminated, prompt timing drifts, access differs across conditions, burden grows, learner communication changes, or independent responding does not appear where it matters. The qualified team may revise definitions, assess another support, fade, pause, or stop. This record organizes evidence for that conversation; it does not make the decision.

Set the next review date explicitly. Name the decision owner.

Related resources

Sources

These sources differ in participants, targets, prompts, implementers, settings, and designs. They support explicit procedure definitions, distinct teaching and probe records, access, direct measurement, integrity review, and cautious interpretation. They do not supply a universal controlling prompt, trial count, probe frequency, response interval, reinforcement, correction, mastery rule, or expected effect.