To assess requests for information and clarification, define Lina's accessible questions and requests for repetition, explanation, examples, time, written information, or uncertainty; the information source; partner availability and recognition; accurate response; response time; comprehension check; privacy; decision effect; and outcome. Measure whether the system supplies usable information. Do not turn memory, rapid answering, agreement, or the absence of follow-up questions into proof of understanding.

Define Lina's information request

Include what, why, who, when, where, how, repeat, show me, write it, example, more time, uncertain, private, and ask later options in every communication mode Lina uses.

Name the authoritative information source

Record whether the answer comes from a person, current policy, schedule, clinical recommendation, payer, law, safety plan, or another source. A helpful partner should not invent authority.

Measure answer quality and timing

Separate partner availability, recognition, acknowledgment, accurate scoped response, accessible format, response latency, correction, unresolved item, and whether Lina says the information is usable.

Check understanding without coercion

Offer teach-back, choice comparison, demonstration, written summary, later review, or Lina's preferred confirmation method. A different decision does not show misunderstanding.

Use this sequence to assess clarification

Map Lina's messages, information owners, formats, response stages, privacy, decision effect, corrections, and unresolved routes; repair the system before proposing a new client target.

Build Lina's information and clarification request assessment

Create one versioned information and clarification request assessment for the community ceramics course. Include Lina's priority and decision, message authorship and accessible communication, information, partner and power context, authority, ordinary supports, privacy, health and safety routes, eligible events, response stages, outcome, invalidity, missingness, withdrawal, alternatives, qualified owner, correction, action rule, and reassessment trigger. Store only purpose-needed information with role-limited access. Record question form, requested format and detail, information source and version, responsible partner, availability, recognition, answer, accuracy owner, timing, comprehension or usability check chosen by Lina, privacy, decision effect, correction, and outcome.

Validate Lina's evidence

Reproduce 20 requests, 18 with partner availability, 15 accurate scoped answers, 12 timely responses, and 13/15 usable ratings. Verify message, information source, partner, accuracy, latency, accessibility, privacy, decision effect, correction, and outcome.

Connect Lina's evidence to a decision

The course adds written examples, names a backup information owner, and corrects three answer scripts. Lina can request more time or a private explanation without losing the underlying choice.

Work through Lina's example

Lina makes 20 defined information or clarification requests. A responsible partner is available for 18, gives an accurate scoped answer for 15, and responds within two minutes for 12. Lina rates 13 of the 15 answers usable for the decision. Two unavailable, three inaccurate or incomplete, three delayed, and two poor-fit answers remain visible at their stages. Preserve every planned and eligible event, authored message, information and access version, partner and power context, authority, response, repair, invalid record, correction, unresolved item, and outcome. This fictional example demonstrates one assessment control. It supplies no diagnosis, treatment effect, legal entitlement, accommodation decision, crisis clearance, coverage decision, or outcome guarantee for Lina.

Address Lina's main interpretation risk

Reporting 13 of 20 successful questions blends availability, accuracy, timing, and usability. Asking Lina to repeat information from memory would test recall, not whether the explanation supported a real decision. Review communication and information access, partner availability, power, dependency, retaliation, relationship, authority, privacy, health, safety, task demand, observer effects, client priorities, and design strength separately. Agreement, eye contact, confident tone, speed, persistence, independence, or reduced disagreement cannot establish understanding, consent, safety, or self-advocacy.

Keep Lina's clinical scope explicit

For Lina's information and clarification request assessment, the CASP public summary supplies high-level ABA behavioral-health-treatment scope for autistic people, with licensed detail outside this page. The current BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, client involvement, consent and assent when applicable, assessment, risk, data, documentation, confidentiality, and evaluation for covered people. The BACB outline is examination content. These sources do not create legal authority, accommodation entitlement, emergency power, or permission to replace Lina's message with adult preference.

Protect broad communication for Lina

ASHA's AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to their tools or devices. A 2026 systematic review of AAC research for autistic adults and children found that the literature still focused heavily on teaching requests and reported variable study quality and generalization evidence. This supports protecting Lina's broad communication purposes, including information, refusal, privacy, repair, and relationship messages, without treating one device or requesting outcome as a complete self-advocacy measure.

Treat self-advocacy evidence as emerging for Lina

A mini-review of self-advocacy and self-determination in autistic adolescents and young adults describes encouraging associations with education, employment, relationships, identity, self-concept, and quality of life. The authors state that they did not use a systematic search because the literature is emerging. The review supplies concepts and research questions, not a causal estimate, universal curriculum, or prediction about Lina.

Scope disability-access sources for Lina

The U.S. Department of Justice effective-communication guidance explains duties for covered Title II and Title III entities and directs attention to the communication's nature, length, complexity, context, and the person's usual method. The Title III regulations address public accommodations, including reasonable modifications, effective communication, rule-specific limits, and safety requirements based on actual risk rather than stereotypes. Exact applicability, requested modification, decision process, defenses, and remedies require qualified legal or access review; an ABA assessment cannot promise a result for Lina.

Preserve participation, assent, and safety for Lina

The UK NICE NG11 recommendations address people with learning disabilities whose behavior challenges and emphasize participation, understandable information, communication, health, environment, choice, respectful support, quality of life, and least-restrictive practice. These considerations organize Lina's questions but are not U.S. authority or a universal self-advocacy protocol. Breaux and Smith propose individualized assent and withdrawal procedures in an evolving literature; their paper is practice guidance, not a separate BACB mandate. For danger or a medical emergency in the United States, SAMHSA directs people to call 911 or go to the nearest emergency room; routine assessment must not delay emergency, protective, or mandated action.

Choose Lina's next bounded action

Lina may revisit a decision after receiving clearer information. The course tracks unresolved questions rather than treating silence as understanding. Record the qualified owner, evidence, effective date, message and information version, partner and authority, privacy and safety route, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement or complaint path, and reassessment trigger. Preserve the earlier record when decisions, access, relationships, authority, health, safety, or priorities change.

Close Lina's assessment

Review the information and clarification request assessment with Lina, the qualified behavior analyst, relevant partners, access owners, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that authorship, communication, information, partner, power, authority, response, privacy, safety, and outcome remain separate; every denominator is reproducible; AAC, basic needs, prescribed care, refusal, change of mind, and safe exit remain protected; urgent needs received action; and conclusions stay bounded to sampled decisions. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required review is complete.

Related resources

Sources