Consecutive-session and rolling-window mastery rules summarize recent performance differently. A consecutive rule requires every session in an uninterrupted run to meet its threshold. A rolling window evaluates a defined set of recent sessions, often with an average or count rule. The same data can trigger different dates. Predefine the window, denominator, missing-session treatment, context balance, and reason for the chosen rule.

Write the consecutive rule completely

State the session threshold, required run length, reset condition, spacing, and handling of invalid or missing sessions.

Write the rolling rule completely

State window size, summary formula, minimum valid sessions, weights, and whether every session must meet a floor.

Use the same underlying data

Keep numerators, denominators, prompts, people, materials, and settings visible before comparing dates.

Check for context concentration

Two high sessions with one therapist or item set may not represent the skill's intended use.

Name one governing rule

Choose the active release mechanism prospectively and label alternate calculations as descriptive or sensitivity checks.

Build Cora's mastery-window comparison

For the consecutive sessions versus rolling window mastery question, create a versioned mastery-window comparison. Preserve the target, client-selected purpose, operational response, accepted communication forms, eligible opportunities, observation time, numerator, denominator, independence, prompts, context, partners, materials, criterion, teaching history, generalization, maintenance, access, safety, decision owner, actual transition, and follow-up. Another qualified reviewer should be able to reconstruct Cora's result without guessing what counted.

Work through Cora's mastery example

Cora's five session results are 17 of 20, 18 of 20, 14 of 20, 19 of 20, and 19 of 20, or 85%, 90%, 70%, 95%, and 95%. A rule requiring at least 90% for two consecutive sessions is first met in sessions 4 and 5. A three-session rolling average of at least 85% is first met by sessions 2 through 4 because (90 + 70 + 95) / 3 = 85%. The next window, sessions 3 through 5, also qualifies at 86.7%. Show raw counts and every relevant cell or date before adding percentages. This fictional clinic dressing-skills program example illustrates one decision pattern and does not establish a universal mastery level, observation count, probe schedule, treatment plan, or transition rule.

Audit Cora's source evidence

Cora's record calculates each rule prospectively, shows all five session numerators and denominators, and identifies different release dates. It also checks whether the same materials and partner produced both high final scores. The audit also checks definition and criterion versions, data-entry history, invalid and missing states, opportunity selection, observer agreement when useful, graph or table calculations, prompt coding, teaching integrity, and corrections. Unresolved discrepancies stay visible and pause any transition that depends on them.

Address Cora's main decision risk

A rolling average can let one low session hide among high values, while a consecutive rule can reset after a contextually explainable miss. Cora's team chooses based on the skill and decision rather than convenience. A dashboard can calculate and surface evidence. It cannot decide that a skill is meaningful, safe, generalized, maintained, or complete. Those judgments belong to the person and qualified roles under the applicable plan and authority.

Choose Cora's next step

Whichever rule is selected, the later generalization and maintenance plan remains separate. The unused rule may appear as a sensitivity summary without becoming a second release path. Record the decision, rationale, owner, date, support plan, and review trigger. Keep acquisition, generalization, maintenance, and clinical value as separate evidence so one favorable state cannot silently satisfy another.

Protect Cora's access and choice

Keep Cora's AAC, interpreters, mobility, food, water, bathroom use, prescribed care, health support, rest, relationships, and emergency help available. Ordinary communication, sensory, visual, and mobility supports remain present during teaching and probes unless the defined question concerns one support and qualified review approves the safe comparison. Use accessible consent and assent processes when applicable and respond to withdrawal, dissent, or distress.

Apply current sources to Cora's review

Cora's source review reflects that mastery criteria combine a performance level with observations across time and can influence later maintenance. The BACB ethics hub and CASP public summary provide professional context, while the BCBA Test Content Outline identifies examination content on measurement and skill acquisition. The WWC handbook supplies research-design context. A mastery and maintenance review, a replication of criterion effects, and a preliminary criterion analysis show that criterion details can affect later responding and remain incompletely standardized. A generalization case study and ABA instructional-design paper address purposeful planning. ASHA supports continuous AAC access.

Rehearse Cora's decision rule

Test the mastery-window comparison with fictional cases containing 0 of 0 opportunities, a perfect 2 of 2, unequal session denominators, prompted success, a missing session, a weak context, an overdue probe, and a system-access failure. Confirm that statuses, denominators, holds, calculations, and review routes behave as intended. Store expected outputs, software version, reviewer notes, and the correction log before the rule touches live data.

Close Cora's mastery review

Review the mastery-window comparison with Cora, the responsible clinician, and other specialists required by the target. Preserve raw data, active criterion, teaching context, client input, access and safety evidence, generalization, maintenance, qualified decision, actual transition, exceptions, and later outcomes. Keep the page draft and noindex until every manifest-named review is complete.

Related resources

Sources