To reassess prompt performance after access or task changes, begin with Ximena's report and a defined trigger. Review the natural cue, materials, language, AAC, motor and sensory access, health, response effort, setting, partner, task steps, prompt timing, consequence, and preference. Version old, changed, and repaired conditions, restore access, and collect minimal new evidence before altering the prompt plan.

Set change triggers

Open review when cues, materials, language, AAC, motor access, sensory conditions, health, effort, setting, partner, task steps, prompt timing, consequence, or preference changes meaningfully.

Ask Ximena first

Use Ximena's preferred communication to identify missing, confusing, effortful, helpful, or unwanted features. Preserve a way to pause or decline assessment.

Version complete conditions

Record old, changed, and repaired cues, materials, task steps, device state, access, prompt, wait, partner, consequence, dates, and locations.

Restore access before inference

Repair AAC, screen-reader, visual, auditory, motor, language, positioning, connectivity, and partner-access conditions. Keep access failures visible in coverage.

Collect minimal new evidence

Use a short natural comparison or targeted probe that resolves the decision. Preserve current support and stop when evidence is adequate.

Use this sequence to reassess prompt performance after access or task changes

Start with Ximena's report, verify the trigger, version the conditions, restore access, compare only what matters, report each phase separately, and update the prompt plan without assigning blame.

Build Ximena's prompt-performance change review

Create one versioned prompt-performance change review for the updated workplace-software review. Include Ximena's priority, natural cue, accessible response, independent window, prompt topography, level, latency, sequence, escalation or fading, consequence, correction, access, health, exposure, planned and delivered prompts, first-response codes, reserved probes, integrity, agreement, invalidity, missingness, withdrawal, direct experience, burden, result, uncertainty, decision, owner, correction, and review trigger. Store only decision-relevant information with role-limited access.

Validate Ximena's prompt evidence

Confirm that Ximena's natural cue, response, independent window, and prompt definitions remain comparable across versions. Reproduce 14/16, the changed-version coverage record of 6/16 with three access failures, the resulting 6/13 valid-opportunity rate when the other 13 opportunities meet validity rules, and the repaired 12/16. Document layout, labels, device, task steps, effort, timing, prompts, partner, consequence, and exposure. Ask Ximena which changes mattered. Preserve earlier evidence as context-specific history and revise only the affected prompt decision. Before closing the review, verify the repaired interface during ordinary work with the approved accessibility settings, current partner instructions, and a rollback route. Record any remaining mismatch as an environment or implementation issue. Recheck the revised task under ordinary scheduling conditions.

Keep Ximena's prompting, independence, and experience separate

Measure prompt delivery and integrity with due opportunities. Measure independent, prompted, error, correction, and probe performance with their own units. Ask Ximena separately about clarity, effort, comfort, usefulness, burden, and whether assessment should continue. Accurate prompting can coexist with poor fit or unwanted control. Better experience can also occur without evidence that fading caused transfer.

Work through Ximena's example

Ximena responds independently in 14/16 valid opportunities with the old software. After an update moves controls and removes screen-reader labels, the planned-coverage record shows six independent responses across 16 opportunities, including three access failures. If the other 13 opportunities meet the validity rules, report changed-version performance as 6/13 and report coverage as 13/16, with all three failures attributed to access. After labels and control order are repaired, independence is 12/16 valid opportunities. Keep the planned record of 6/16 for audit history, but never use it as Ximena's valid-opportunity performance rate. The sequence cannot isolate access, practice, or layout effects. Preserve every planned and valid unit, raw count, denominator, cue state, response code, prompt topography, level, latency, delivery, correction, access state, integrity result, probe, withdrawal, direct report, system failure, correction, and unresolved item. This fictional example demonstrates one assessment control. It offers no universal prompt hierarchy, independence, mastery, generalization, diagnosis, trait, treatment effect, legal conclusion, coverage decision, payment promise, or outcome guarantee.

Address Ximena's main assessment risk

Calling the drop prompt dependence puts a software and access change inside Ximena. Increasing prompt strength before repairing labels may make the system harder to evaluate and less usable. Review cue and response definitions, prompt topography, latency, sequence, access, motor and sensory needs, consequence, correction, partner behavior, context, client experience, authority, and causal scope separately. High prompted accuracy cannot repair an inaccessible, burdensome, or ethically unsound arrangement.

Keep prompting concepts and authority clear for Ximena

The ABAI Basic Principles page supplies broad higher-education context. The BACB Test Content Outline covers response and stimulus prompts, prompt fading, time delay, stimulus-control transfer, integrity, and evaluation as examination content. The current BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, involvement, consent and assent when applicable, medical needs, risk, data, documentation, and evaluation for covered people. These sources do not create an individualized prompt plan for Ximena.

Use individualized prompt selection for Ximena

The prompting decision tool organizes variables for evaluating and selecting prompting strategies. It supports explicit attention to skill, task, error history, prompt type, fading, efficiency, and context. It remains an evidence-informed decision aid rather than a universal hierarchy, legal authority, or guaranteed procedure for Ximena.

Read small prompting comparisons cautiously for Ximena

Libby and colleagues compared most-to-least, least-to-most, and a delayed most-to-least arrangement in small Lego-construction studies. Error and acquisition-speed patterns varied by procedure and participant. The study supplies comparison variables rather than a universal winner or expected outcome for Ximena.

Expect task and participant variation for Ximena

Fentress and Lerman compared prompting procedures across tasks and reported variation relevant to acquisition and prompt dependence. Narrow samples and tasks limit generalization. For Ximena, report the task, natural cue, prompt history, errors, latency, independent probes, access, and client experience directly.

Preserve treatment scope, AAC, assent, and access for Ximena

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 communication, health care, food, water, bathroom use, mobility, rest, relationships, safety, and emergency help for Ximena.

Choose Ximena's next bounded action

Ximena approves the repaired layout and asks the employer to preserve the prior version during future accessibility testing. Record the qualified owner, supporting evidence, effective date, current supports, health and access state, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement route, and reassessment trigger. Preserve the original assessment when cues, responses, people, systems, tasks, or preferences change. A new arrangement creates a dated version rather than an error in Ximena's earlier performance.

Close Ximena's prompt review

Review the prompt-performance change review with Ximena, the qualified behavior analyst, relevant partners, access owners, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that prompted performance stays separate from natural-cue control, teaching and probe denominators are reproducible, AAC and basic access remain protected, health and motor questions stay with qualified professionals, and conclusions remain bounded to the sampled response, prompt, task, people, and context. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required review is complete.

Related resources

Sources