Define a Shared Event, Bid, and Partner Response

To define a shared event bid and partner response, specify what Mateo is sharing, who authors the message, which partner is available, how the bid can be expressed, and what counts as acknowledgment, following the referent, continuation, repair, refusal, or completion. Use observable timing and accessible forms. A face look or head turn can be recorded when relevant, yet it should never substitute for the shared-event outcome.

Define the shared event

Name the object, activity, change, idea, feeling, sound, image, or problem that both people can access. Record when it becomes available and when the opportunity ends.

Protect message authorship

A bid must be Mateo's recognizable communication or action. A partner can position equipment, wait, or clarify without selecting the message or moving Mateo's body to produce it.

List acceptable message forms

Include chosen speech, AAC, sign, gesture, card placement, photo, text, sound, movement, or task action. Define the referent and avoid ranking forms by how typical they appear.

Specify the partner response

Describe availability, acknowledgment, orientation to the relevant event, action, comment, answer, wait, repair, or respectful decline. Partner behavior belongs in the record.

Use this sequence to write the specification

Define the event, confirm authorship and access, list bid forms, set the window, define partner actions and repairs, test boundary examples, and revise any rule observers apply inconsistently.

Build Mateo's shared-event and partner-response specification

Create one versioned shared-event and partner-response specification for the collaborative neighborhood map project. Include Mateo's priority, shared event, bid and response definitions, authorship, accessible forms, initiation or response status, opportunity and clock rules, partner availability and actions, joint engagement, requests and information alternatives, prompts, context, health, client experience, choice, invalidity, missingness, withdrawal, evidence limits, qualified owner, correction, and reassessment trigger. Store only decision-relevant information with role-limited access.

Validate Mateo's evidence

Reproduce 15 bids, 11 acknowledgments within eight seconds, two repaired exchanges, two missed bids, and joint action on 10/12 acknowledged or repaired exchanges. Verify event, authorship, form, referent, partner availability, timing, acknowledgment, continuation, repair, refusal, and completion.

Connect Mateo's evidence to a decision

The specification supports consistent observation and partner coaching. It can show whether messages are recognized, whether a slower response window helps, and whether the map interface makes the referent clear.

Work through Mateo's example

Mateo makes 15 map-related bids through speech, AAC, pointing, or moving a labeled card. Partners acknowledge 11 within eight seconds, repair two after Mateo repeats or changes form, and miss two. In 12 acknowledged or repaired exchanges, both people act on the same map feature in 10. The report keeps partner response and shared follow-through separate. Preserve every planned and valid opportunity, shared-event version, accessible bid or response, authorship, partner action, prompt, repair, request or information alternative, timing, access and health state, withdrawal, invalid event, correction, and unresolved item. This fictional example demonstrates one assessment control. It supplies no diagnosis, universal social-communication hierarchy, treatment effect, legal conclusion, coverage decision, payment promise, or outcome guarantee for Mateo.

Address Mateo's main interpretation risk

Saying Mateo got the partner's attention does not reveal what he shared or how the partner responded. Requiring the partner to look at Mateo's eyes can miss a successful map response. Treating every card movement as a bid can also erase actions that serve only the task. Review shared-event access, communication form, partner availability, response timing, requests, information seeking, independent enjoyment, prompts, task cues, partner directiveness, history, context, health, fatigue, preference, direct experience, and design strength separately. A convincing sequence cannot make an unsafe, inaccessible, unwanted, unauthorized, or irrelevant social goal clinically appropriate.

Keep scope and authority clear for Mateo

For Mateo's shared-event and partner-response specification, 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, medical needs, risk, data, documentation, and evaluation for covered people. The BACB outline is examination content. These sources supply no individualized joint-attention target, developmental prognosis, legal authority, or requirement that Mateo look at another person's face.

Read the applied bid study critically for Mateo

Taylor and Hoch studied three children using separate teaching for responding to and initiating bids. The study's response definition required item looking, a spoken comment, and looking back at the instructor; its initiation definition also used specified point and speech forms. Results differed across components and participants. The study illustrates the need to separate response, initiation, and generalization. Its gaze and vocal topographies are historical study definitions, not universal requirements for Mateo.

Keep JASPER findings tied to their populations for Mateo

A pilot randomized study involved minimally verbal children ages three to five in a preschool and substituted two 30-minute JASPER sessions weekly for part of usual programming over 12 weeks. The treatment group showed greater play diversity and classroom differences in gestures and unengaged time. A later parent-mediated comparative study measured joint engagement during an independent parent-child assessment with novel toys. These findings belong to those early-childhood programs and measures; they establish no universal target, dose, mechanism, or outcome for Mateo.

Separate caregiver and peer opportunities for Mateo

The caregiver-mediated randomized study treated responding and initiating as distinct outcomes and discussed how adult directiveness can reduce opportunities to initiate. A three-dyad peer study coded a gaze shift plus vocalization and trained peer behaviors including bids, responses, waiting, prompts, and redirection. These studies support measuring partner opportunity and behavior. Their participant groups and response forms do not establish a required social style for Mateo.

Preserve assent and communication access for Mateo

Breaux and Smith propose individualized assent and withdrawal practices while describing an evolving evidence base. Their paper is practice guidance rather than a separate BACB mandate. ASHA's AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to their tools or devices. Give Mateo an accessible way to share, ask, correct, accept, pause, decline, or withdraw. Do not require eye contact, speech, proximity, or social endurance as the price of participation.

Choose Mateo's next bounded action

Mateo adds a colored border to shared cards and asks partners to acknowledge before editing the map. A repair remains available through AAC or repositioning the card. Record the qualified owner, source evidence, effective date, current activity and partner version, ordinary supports, communication and health state, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement route, and reassessment trigger. Preserve the earlier record when partners, shared events, communication, settings, systems, outcomes, health, or priorities change. A repaired arrangement creates a dated phase rather than an error in Mateo's prior participation.

Close Mateo's assessment

Review the shared-event and partner-response specification with Mateo, the qualified behavior analyst, relevant partners, access owners, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that shared-event access, initiation, response, partner behavior, requesting, information seeking, independent enjoyment, joint engagement, and downstream outcomes remain separate; 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 Define a Shared Event, Bid, and Partner Response