Compare Programmed and Obtained Variability Contingencies

To compare programmed and obtained variability contingencies, map Omar's written rule against each observed opportunity. Record which variants qualified, what staff recognized, what consequence followed varied and repeated responses, delay, quality, magnitude, prompts, corrections, competing events, and missed trials. Attribute change to the contingency only after the delivered pattern differs meaningfully for criterion and noncriterion responses under a credible comparison.

Translate the plan into observable events

List the eligible response, history rule, consequence, timing window, quality, magnitude, prompt rule, correction, reset, and owner. A label such as reinforce variability lacks enough detail for audit.

Build a complete contingency table

Count criterion responses with and without the consequence and noncriterion responses with and without it. Retain every valid opportunity so favorable cells cannot define their own denominator.

Audit recognition before delivery

Staff may miss an accessible response, misclassify a meaningful variant, or treat a prompt product as independent. Check observer agreement and partner recognition before interpreting delivery integrity.

Inspect competing consequences

Attention, task progress, escape, correction, peer reactions, and ordinary activity outcomes may follow either response type. Record the events relevant to Omar's decision rather than assuming the named consequence acts alone.

Use this sequence to compare contingencies

Version Omar's plan, map each opportunity, verify recognition, tabulate delivery, inspect delays and competing events, repair the system, and collect a new phase before interpreting change.

Build Omar's programmed-versus-obtained contingency audit

Create one versioned programmed-versus-obtained contingency audit for the community cooking group. Include Omar's priority, response class, scored dimension, eligible opportunity, response window, raw sequence, distinct and repeated forms, prompts, comparison history, contingency, integrity, context, access, health, direct experience, partner response, invalidity, missingness, withdrawal, evidence limits, qualified decision owner, correction, and reassessment trigger. Store only decision-relevant information with role-limited access.

Validate Omar's variability evidence

Reproduce 30 valid turns, 18 criterion turns, 12 repeats, consequence delivery of 15/18 and 7/12, and four delays over 20 seconds. Rebuild the four cells as 15 criterion turns with delivery, three criterion turns without delivery, seven repeats with delivery, and five repeats without delivery. Under a rule that calls for delivery after criterion turns and withholding after repeats, 20/30 delivery decisions match the programmed classification. Keep the four delayed deliveries separate because the available summary does not locate them within those cells. Verify written criteria, recognition, delivery, timing, quality, prompts, competing events, partner response, access, and correction history.

Connect Omar's evidence to a decision

Omar's audit determines whether a clinical interpretation is possible and whether the system needs repair first. Staff may need clearer categories, immediate recognition, better materials, or a simpler goal. A low-integrity phase becomes evidence about implementation rather than evidence about Omar's capacity.

Work through Omar's example

Omar has 30 valid ingredient-choice turns. The plan marks 18 as meeting the current diversity criterion and 12 as repeats. Staff provide the named consequence after 15 criterion turns and withhold it after three; they also provide it after seven repeats and withhold it after five. The classification-level contingency table therefore contains 20/30 correct delivery decisions, or 66.7%, from 15 appropriate deliveries plus five appropriate withholds. Four deliveries occur over 20 seconds late, so timing integrity remains a separate result. The plan says differential delivery; the obtained record shows weak separation plus variable timing. Preserve every planned and valid opportunity, response in order, category code, prompt, repetition reason, consequence, delay, partner response, access and health state, withdrawal, invalid event, correction, and unresolved item. This fictional example demonstrates one measurement control. It supplies no diagnosis, creativity judgment, universal variability target, treatment effect, coverage decision, payment promise, or outcome guarantee for Omar.

Address Omar's main interpretation risk

An integrity percentage based only on 15 correct deliveries hides seven consequences after repeats. Averaging delays hides the four long waits. If repeats reflect staff failure to acknowledge Omar's first choice, withholding a response can compound a partner error. Review the response property, opportunity mix, history rule, reinforcement, prompts, partner behavior, access, health, direct experience, comparison, and design strength separately. A higher or lower diversity score gains meaning only through the person's goal and the conditions that produced it.

Keep scope and authority clear for Omar

For Omar's programmed-versus-obtained contingency audit, the CASP public summary supplies high-level ABA behavioral-health-treatment scope for autistic people, while licensed detail sits outside this page. The current BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, client and stakeholder involvement, consent and assent when applicable, assessment, medical needs, risk, data, documentation, and evaluation for covered people. The BACB outline is examination content. These sources supply no individualized variability protocol or authority for Omar.

Treat variability as a measurement claim for Omar

Barba's conceptual analysis examines lag and threshold procedures and argues that common response-distribution measures can differ from the property used to arrange reinforcement. The critical review likewise evaluates the evidence and procedure details behind variability-as-operant claims. These papers show active conceptual disagreement. For Omar, define the scored property, programmed consequence, obtained consequence, and behavior measure on compatible units before making a process claim.

Use the applied lag evidence within its limits for Omar

Olin, Sonsky, and Howard used a changing-criterion design with one eleven-year-old participant, several questions, prompts, visual aids, error correction, generalization probes, and one maintenance probe. The category-naming evaluation compared progressive and terminal lag arrangements with two children and used several variability measures. These small studies illustrate procedures and measurement choices. They provide no universal lag value, dose, outcome, or creative-skill standard for Omar.

Separate communication diversity from access for Omar

The mand-variability paper reviews several dimensions of mand variability and the predominant use of lag schedules in applied research. A communication form can be familiar, repeated, and fully effective. ASHA's AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to their tools or devices. Keep Omar's modality, access, partner recognition, response effort, and functional result separate from the diversity score.

Preserve assent and direct experience for Omar

Breaux and Smith propose practice procedures for individualized assent and withdrawal responses while describing limits in the evidence base. Their paper is practice guidance rather than a separate BACB mandate. Follow governing consent and assent sources, give Omar an accessible way to accept, pause, decline, or change the activity, and treat distress or withdrawal as a response requiring action rather than a variability error.

Choose Omar's next bounded action

Omar asks the group to confirm every ingredient choice before applying the diversity rule. The next phase starts only after staff can score the same examples consistently. Record the qualified owner, source evidence, effective date, current task and definition version, ordinary supports, access and health state, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement route, and reassessment trigger. Preserve the earlier record when responses, people, settings, systems, schedules, health, or priorities change. A repaired arrangement creates a dated phase rather than an error in Omar's prior performance.

Close Omar's variability review

Review the programmed-versus-obtained contingency audit with Omar, the qualified behavior analyst, relevant partners, access owners, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that meaningful diversity remains separate from novelty, recency-rule performance, generalization, creativity, preference, error, access failure, and treatment effect; every denominator is reproducible; AAC and basic access remain protected; urgent needs received action; and conclusions stay bounded to sampled conditions. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required review is complete.

How to Compare Programmed and Obtained Variability Contingencies