Audit Delivered Error Correction Against the Procedure

To audit delivered error correction against the written procedure, freeze Zane's approved cue, error definition, feedback, prompt, modeled or guided response, retry, reinforcement, repetition cap, safety exception, stop rule, and return to instruction. Classify every due event as correct, early, late, stronger, weaker, repeated, omitted, inaccessible, improvised, interrupted, or missing. Keep integrity separate from Zane's learning and experience.

Freeze the written sequence

Record approved cue, error, feedback, prompt form and level, guided response, retry, consequence, repetition cap, stop, safety exception, owner, and effective dates.

Create a due-event denominator

Identify every valid error when the procedure requires correction. Retain omissions, inaccessible steps, interruptions, and missing records in coverage.

Classify delivery deviations

Use mutually exclusive correct, early, late, stronger, weaker, repeated, omitted, inaccessible, interrupted, and missing states. Keep improvised corrections outside due events as extras.

Segment implementation carefully

Show partner, copier, task step, shift, and procedure version when cell sizes support a useful review. Use patterns to improve training and equipment rather than rank staff.

Use this sequence to audit delivered error correction against the written procedure

Version Zane's sequence, identify due events, classify delivery, retain extras and missingness, verify agreement, repair system patterns, and review Zane's independent outcomes and experience separately.

Build Zane's written-versus-delivered correction audit

Create one versioned written-versus-delivered correction audit for the workplace-copier review. Include Zane's priority, natural cue, accessible response, first-response states, independent window, correction due event, written sequence, prompt, feedback, retry, consequence, latency, repetitions, stop, return to instruction, ordinary supports, access, health, exposure, integrity, agreement, invalidity, missingness, withdrawal, direct experience, burden, later independent probes, generalization, maintenance, result, uncertainty, decision, owner, correction, and review trigger. Store only decision-relevant information with role-limited access.

Validate Zane's correction evidence

Reproduce Zane's 20 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 28 due-event classifications and 20/28 = 71.4%. Confirm the four extras, written version, cue, error, feedback, prompt, retry, reinforcement, repetitions, stop, return, equipment state, partner, and timestamps. Sample agreement on due events and deviation codes. Repair procedure drift before interpreting outcome data. Review one complete correction episode from cue through return to instruction, including equipment state and Zane's report.

Keep Zane's evidence and experience separate

Measure planned coverage, initial responses, correction fidelity, retry performance, later probes, access, generalization, and maintenance with their own units. Ask Zane separately about clarity, effort, comfort, usefulness, burden, and whether assessment should continue. Accurate correction delivery can coexist with poor fit. Better later performance can also occur without evidence that the correction procedure alone produced the change.

Work through Zane's example

Zane has 28 correction events due. Twenty are delivered exactly as written. Two start early, one starts late, one uses a stronger prompt, one repeats beyond the cap, one omits the retry, one is interrupted by copier failure, and one lacks data. The categories total 28. Correct integrity is 20/28, or 71.4%. Four improvised corrections outside due events remain separate. Preserve every planned and valid unit, raw count, denominator, response code, correction version, prompt, retry, consequence, latency, repetition, access state, integrity result, probe, withdrawal, direct report, system failure, correction, and unresolved item. This fictional example demonstrates one assessment control. It offers no universal correction sequence, prompt hierarchy, reinforcement rule, independence, mastery, generalization, diagnosis, trait, treatment effect, legal conclusion, coverage decision, payment promise, or outcome guarantee.

Address Zane's main assessment risk

Removing the interrupted and missing events reports 20/26 and overstates delivery. Adding four improvised corrections to the numerator produces 24/28 without a due-event basis. Accurate correction delivery can still be burdensome or poorly fitted for Zane. Review goal relevance, cue and response definitions, opportunity quality, ordinary supports, access, health, effort, correction timing, prompts, reinforcement, partner behavior, context, client experience, authority, and causal scope separately. A high corrected-response percentage cannot repair an inaccessible, burdensome, unwanted, or ethically unsound arrangement.

Keep error-correction concepts and authority clear for Zane

For Zane's written-versus-delivered correction audit, the ABAI Basic Principles page supplies broad higher-education context. The BACB Test Content Outline includes measurement, prompting, error correction, integrity, generalization, maintenance, and evaluation as examination content. The current BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, client involvement, consent and assent when applicable, medical needs, positive reinforcement, risk, data, documentation, and evaluation for covered people. These sources create no individualized correction procedure or practice authority.

Read the procedure comparison cautiously for Zane

In Zane's review, Leaf and colleagues offer one narrow comparison involving 28 autistic participants learning tact relations. Both defined procedures were effective and efficient under the study conditions, with different independent-correct and independent-error patterns. The result supplies no universal correction sequence, prompt, retry rule, or expected outcome for Zane.

Keep post-correction reinforcement individualized for Zane

For the workplace-copier review, Cariveau and colleagues studied reinforcement following correction with four autistic children. The small, task-specific work shows why consequence details deserve measurement. It does not establish one consequence rule, magnitude, timing, or duration for Zane. Verify current choice, obtained delivery, later performance, and burden directly.

Use prompting literature within scope for Zane

The prompting decision tool organizes evidence-informed variables for selecting prompting strategies, including skill, task, error history, prompt type, fading, efficiency, and context. Apply those questions to Zane's correction prompt without converting the tool into a universal hierarchy, legal authority, or outcome guarantee.

Preserve treatment scope, AAC, assent, and access for Zane

The CASP public summary supplies high-level ABA behavioral-health-treatment scope for autistic people, with licensed detail outside this page. ASHA's AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to their communication tools or devices. Breaux and Smith provide assent-focused practice guidance in an evolving evidence base. Follow governing sources and preserve communication, health care, food, water, bathroom use, mobility, rest, relationships, safety, and emergency help for Zane.

Choose Zane's next bounded action

Zane asks for the repetition cap beside the copier and wants interrupted events routed to equipment support before teaching resumes. Record the qualified owner, supporting evidence, effective date, current procedure version, ordinary supports, health and access state, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement route, and reassessment trigger. Preserve the original assessment when cues, responses, people, systems, tasks, health, or priorities change. A new arrangement creates a dated version rather than an error in Zane's earlier performance.

Close Zane's correction review

Review the written-versus-delivered correction audit with Zane, the qualified behavior analyst, relevant partners, access owners, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that initial responses remain separate from correction, retry, and probe evidence; every denominator is reproducible; AAC and basic access remain protected; health and motor questions stay with qualified professionals; and conclusions remain bounded to the sampled response, task, people, and context. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required review is complete.

How to Audit Delivered Error Correction Against the Written Procedure