To reassess persistence after context or reinforcement changes, open a new version for Victor's response, cue, setting, partner, schedule, consequence quality, magnitude, delay, effort, access, health, disruption, alternative response, or priority. Preserve old, changed, and repaired phases. Rebuild baseline when the arrangement materially changes. A prior proportion of baseline should not be carried into a new context as though it were a stable trait.

Set explicit reassessment triggers

Open Victor's review when a response, cue, system, partner, schedule, consequence, effort, access, health, disruption, alternative, or priority changes enough to affect interpretation.

Preserve the original record

Keep version 1 definitions, raw windows, calculations, and decisions. Add version 2 and repaired conditions with dates rather than rewriting Victor's earlier evidence.

Decide whether baseline still applies

Compare response topography, task requirements, cues, consequences, setting, and observation units. Build a new baseline whenever those features materially change.

Repair access before testing persistence

Correct scanner, keyboard, screen-reader, visual, motor, language, and partner-access failures. Keep system failures visible in planned coverage and outside valid response denominators.

Use this sequence to reassess persistence after change

Start with Victor's report, verify the trigger, version the arrangement, restore access, rebuild baseline, use only comparable windows, and connect the updated result to one bounded decision.

Build Victor's persistence reassessment record

Create one versioned persistence reassessment record for the volunteer event check-in system. Include Victor's priority, response class, accepted forms, context, baseline, obtained reinforcement, disruption, recovery, sequence, absolute rate, relative persistence, ordinary supports, access, health, exposure, integrity, agreement, invalidity, missingness, withdrawal, direct experience, burden, alternative responses, causal limits, decision, owner, correction, and review trigger. Store only information needed for the stated decision and limit access by role.

Validate Victor's persistence evidence

Reproduce Victor's 6/8 = 75%, 5/14 = 35.7%, and three invalid scanner failures. Verify response, context, system, feedback, scanner, partners, event mix, reinforcement, effort, access, health, interruption, recovery, order, and Victor's report in each version. Prevent cross-version normalization unless the response and context remain substantively comparable.

Connect Victor's evidence to a decision

Victor's reassessment record should show whether each change affects construct, measurement, delivery, or interpretation. A new scanner may alter access, a new form may alter the response class, and new feedback may alter reinforcement. When several layers change together, the team can describe the phase and rebuild evidence without forcing a cross-version causal comparison.

Work through Victor's example

In system version 1, Victor averages eight completed check-ins and retains six during a routine interruption, or 75%. Version 2 changes the form, feedback, and scanner; baseline rises to 14 while interrupted performance is five, or 35.7%. Three scanner failures are invalid. The proportions describe different systems and cannot establish a decline in Victor's general persistence. Preserve every planned and valid unit, raw count, time denominator, context version, obtained consequence, disruption event, integrity result, access state, recovery window, withdrawal, direct report, system failure, correction, and unresolved item. This fictional example demonstrates one assessment control. It offers no diagnosis, trait, universal persistence estimate, treatment effect, legal conclusion, coverage decision, payment promise, or outcome guarantee for Victor.

Address Victor's main interpretation risk

Using the version 1 baseline to normalize version 2 gives 5/8 and hides a new response arrangement. Treating scanner failures as nonresponse further assigns system performance to Victor. Practice and event mix can explain part of the phase difference. Review response and context definitions, baseline quality, obtained reinforcement, disruption integrity, sequence, recovery, health, access, effort, partner behavior, direct experience, authority, and design strength separately. A precise percentage cannot repair an unwanted, inaccessible, unsafe, or conceptually mismatched assessment.

Keep concepts and authority clear for Victor

For Victor's persistence reassessment record, the ABAI Basic Principles page supplies higher-education context. The BACB Test Content Outline covers measurement, schedules, stimulus control, motivating operations, experimental design, and interpretation as examination content. The current BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, client involvement, consent and assent when applicable, medical needs, risk, data, documentation, and evaluation for covered people. These sources create no individualized momentum protocol or practice authority for Victor.

Use the translational account narrowly for Victor

In the volunteer event check-in system, Nevin and colleagues describe resistance to change as a relative measure comparing disrupted responding with its own baseline. Their translational review separates baseline response rate from persistence and discusses the role of the stimulus-reinforcer context. It supplies hypotheses and measurement logic for Victor, while individual clinical conclusions still require direct, accessible, context-specific evidence.

Treat applied persistence models cautiously for Victor

The Mace applied review discusses behavioral persistence, alternative reinforcement, and treatment relapse. For Victor's decision, these models can organize questions about context and history. They do not identify a response function, prescribe a treatment, authorize a disruption, or predict relapse for one person. Preserve direct assessment, safety planning, treatment integrity, and model limitations.

Keep reinforcement quality and request sequences distinct for Victor

In research reviewed for Victor, Mace and colleagues examined reinforcer quality, high-probability sequences, and resistance to change across applied and basic experiments. The findings show why obtained consequence quality and context deserve measurement. They also support keeping an applied request-sequence result separate from a formal persistence analysis in the volunteer event check-in system.

Preserve scope, AAC, assent, and access for Victor

The CASP public summary supplies high-level ABA behavioral-health-treatment scope for autistic people, with licensed detail outside this page. ASHA's AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to their communication tools or devices. Breaux and Smith provide assent-focused guidance in an evolving evidence base. Follow governing sources and preserve Victor's communication, health care, food, water, bathroom use, mobility, rest, relationships, safety, and emergency help.

Choose Victor's next bounded action

Victor asks the organizer to repair scanner feedback and retain the familiar keyboard route. The next comparison begins only after a stable repaired-version baseline. Record the qualified owner, source evidence, effective date, context version, ordinary supports, access and health state, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement route, and reassessment trigger. Preserve the original assessment when response classes, cues, people, systems, reinforcement, disruptions, health, or priorities change. A new arrangement creates a dated version rather than an error in Victor's earlier performance.

Close Victor's persistence review

Review the persistence reassessment record with Victor, the qualified quantitative behavior analyst, relevant partners, access owners, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that baseline rate remains separate from resistance to change; every denominator and time unit is reproducible; obtained reinforcement and context are documented; AAC and basic access remain protected; health questions stay with qualified professionals; and conclusions remain bounded to the sampled response, context, and disruption. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required review is complete.

Related resources

Sources