Missing treatment-integrity data in ABA mean implementation was not observed or the integrity measure is unavailable for a session that belongs in the planned coverage cohort. Missing is different from measured zero fidelity and from a session with no eligible implementation opportunity. Preserve the due denominator, reason, timing, and context. Assess whether observation selection favored convenient sessions before interpreting outcome data or overall integrity.

Define the due cohort

Specify which sessions were selected for integrity observation before their results and keep each one in coverage.

Use distinct missing states

Separate missed observation, invalid observation, no eligible opportunity, measured zero fidelity, and completed scoring.

Record reasons and context

Capture technology, staffing, schedule, observer, setting, risk, and other factors related to missingness.

Test observation selection

Compare observed and unobserved sessions for patterns that could bias the reported integrity level.

Scope the conclusion

State what the available integrity data can support and which outcome or plan decisions remain uncertain.

Build Quinn's missing-integrity coverage table

For the missing treatment integrity data ABA question, create a versioned missing-integrity coverage table. Preserve the target, client priority, operational definition, observation state, service and entry times, author, numerator, denominator, missingness, graph, integrity protocol, component data, context, access, decision rule, qualified owner, snapshot, correction, implementation, and follow-up. Another reviewer should be able to reconstruct Quinn's evidence and decision without guessing which values were available.

Work through Quinn's data example

Quinn's plan calls for integrity review in ten sampled sessions. Seven are observed, two are missed after technology failures, and one has no eligible implementation opportunity. Coverage is 7 of 10, or 70%. The no-opportunity session remains in coverage because the scheduled observation still occurred, while its fidelity percentage is N/A rather than zero. Show every count, denominator, state, and date before summaries. This fictional school implementation review example illustrates one workflow and does not establish a universal maturity threshold, fidelity target, review frequency, plan change, or treatment recommendation.

Audit Quinn's evidence trail

Quinn's table stores all ten sampled sessions, selection rule, observer, observation status, reason, opportunity count, component scores, outcome link, and age. It distinguishes missed, observed-with-no-opportunity, measured zero, and completed states. The audit also checks definition and protocol versions, source-record access, correction history, graph axes, session spacing, invalid states, observer evidence, calculation precision, review permissions, and downstream dependencies. Unresolved discrepancies remain visible and hold the exact decision they affect.

Address Quinn's main data risk

Observing only well-staffed or low-risk sessions can produce a favorable integrity estimate. Quinn's review compares observed and missed sessions by setting, staff, time, and client conditions. A metric or alert can surface a concern. Qualified reviewers interpret measurement, outcome, integrity, client experience, context, and risk together. One score cannot establish treatment fit, clinical importance, causation, authorization, or completion.

Choose Quinn's next action

The team repairs observation systems, adjusts future sampling prospectively, and narrows any outcome conclusion that depends on the missing coverage. It avoids inventing values through convenience imputation. Record the action, rationale, owner, due date, support, and review trigger. Keep preliminary evidence, finalized evidence, treatment integrity, outcome, client input, and clinical decisions as separate states so one cannot silently substitute for another.

Protect Quinn's access and participation

Keep Quinn's AAC, interpreters, mobility, food, water, bathroom use, prescribed care, health support, rest, relationships, and emergency help available. Use accessible consent and assent processes when applicable and respond to withdrawal, dissent, or distress. Data collection, fidelity observation, or review timing never authorizes staff to delay urgent care or remove ordinary supports.

Apply current sources to Quinn's review

Quinn's page uses published integrity-reporting gaps as a research signal while defining an applied due-cohort workflow rather than a universal sampling quota. The BACB ethics hub and CASP public summary provide professional context, while the BCBA Test Content Outline identifies examination content on measurement, integrity, and data-based decisions. The WWC handbook supplies research-design context. Research on graphing fidelity with rate, integrity reporting, and integrity effects shows why implementation evidence matters. A single-case design review and evidence-based ABA framework describe analysis and decision context. ASHA supports continuous AAC access.

Rehearse Quinn's workflow

Test the missing-integrity coverage table with fictional preliminary records, a late correction, a missing denominator, no integrity opportunity, measured zero fidelity, high fidelity with low use, a critical component miss, an overdue review, and a no-change decision. Confirm that states, due cohorts, calculations, snapshots, permissions, alerts, and qualified routes behave as intended. Store expected results, software version, reviewer notes, and corrections before live use.

Close Quinn's data review

Review the missing-integrity coverage table with Quinn, the responsible clinician, and specialists required by the question. Preserve source data, versions, graphs, maturity status, integrity coverage, components, client input, access and safety evidence, decision, implementation, corrections, and later outcomes. Keep the page draft and noindex until every manifest-named review is complete.

Related resources

Sources