High ABA fidelity with low opportunity means implementation was accurate when it occurred, while the strategy was used or available infrequently relative to relevant opportunities. Report high-fidelity uses, total uses, and eligible opportunities separately. For example, 4 of 5 accurate uses is 80% fidelity, while 5 uses across 20 opportunities is 25% use. Neither percentage alone describes the full implementation pattern.

Define eligible opportunity

Describe the event that makes strategy use relevant and who determines that the event occurred.

Count total use

Record each strategy attempt divided by eligible opportunities without assuming every opportunity requires action.

Score fidelity among uses

Calculate high-fidelity uses divided by all observed uses and retain component-level errors.

Display both denominators

Show 4 of 5 and 5 of 20 beside any graph or summary so accuracy and frequency remain distinct.

Interpret with client context

Review social validity, partner burden, opportunity quality, and whether the intended rate is defined at all.

Build Ravi's fidelity-and-opportunity grid

For the high ABA fidelity low opportunity question, create a versioned fidelity-and-opportunity grid. 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 Ravi's evidence and decision without guessing which values were available.

Work through Ravi's data example

Ravi's partner has 20 defined opportunities to use a communication strategy. The strategy is attempted five times and four attempts meet all protocol steps. Fidelity is 4 of 5, or 80%. Use rate is 5 of 20, or 25%. Reporting only 80% would hide that the strategy occurred in one quarter of opportunities. Show every count, denominator, state, and date before summaries. This fictional home communication-strategy program example illustrates one workflow and does not establish a universal maturity threshold, fidelity target, review frequency, plan change, or treatment recommendation.

Audit Ravi's evidence trail

Ravi's grid records 20 opportunities, five uses, four high-fidelity uses, component errors, client communication, partner response, context, and observer coverage. It avoids treating the 15 unused opportunities as implementation errors unless the protocol explicitly requires use in each one. 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 Ravi's main data risk

More frequent strategy use is not always better. The desired rate can depend on the person's communication, naturally occurring opportunities, partner responsiveness, and burden. Ravi's clinician defines the meaningful pattern with him. 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 Ravi's next action

The team decides whether the issue is opportunity recognition, feasibility, partner training, an inappropriate protocol expectation, or no problem. The two measures remain separate in later reviews. 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 Ravi's access and participation

Keep Ravi'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 Ravi's review

Ravi's source card directly uses research on graphing fidelity and rate together when natural opportunities vary. 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 Ravi's workflow

Test the fidelity-and-opportunity grid 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 Ravi's data review

Review the fidelity-and-opportunity grid with Ravi, 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