To separate high probability request results from momentum evidence, document Uma's screened requests, lower-probability request, sequence, timing, prompts, consequences, partner integrity, choice, withdrawal, and procedure-level outcomes. A formal persistence claim additionally requires baseline response rates, stimulus contexts, reinforcement histories, a defined disruption, and a relative measure. Increased responding after a sequence can be useful evidence without demonstrating behavioral momentum theory.
Name the applied procedure plainly
Describe Uma's screened frequently completed requests, the target request, number and order, timing, prompts, consequences, and partner behavior. Avoid using a theory label as a procedure description.
Report screening and integrity separately
Show request-specific opportunities and responses during a defined period. Calculate correctly delivered sequences divided by sequences due, retaining early, late, prompted, changed, omitted, and withdrawn events.
Protect choice and usefulness
Ask Uma which requests are acceptable and meaningful, how the sequence feels, and how to pause or decline. Exclude unsafe, painful, unnecessary, infantilizing, or unauthorized target requests.
List the missing momentum evidence
State whether the record has stimulus contexts, baseline rates, reinforcement histories, a disruption, recovery, and within-response normalization. Missing components remain unknown rather than inferred.
Use this sequence to separate request results from momentum evidence
Name Uma's procedure, audit screening and delivery, report target outcomes, preserve choice, list alternative explanations, and reserve persistence language for a separate quantitative analysis.
Build Uma's request-sequence and momentum boundary audit
Create one versioned request-sequence and momentum boundary audit for the makerspace workstation setup. Include Uma'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 Uma's persistence evidence
Reproduce Uma's 3/10 baseline, 6/10 sequence phase, and 8/10 integrity. Record every screened request, screening window, sequence, timing, prompt, consequence, target request, partner action, choice, withdrawal, access, experience, and invalid event. Verify that no dashboard calls the phase difference persistence, resistance to change, or behavioral momentum without the missing context and disruption evidence.
Connect Uma's evidence to a decision
Uma's review can still support an applied decision. The team may retain, revise, or stop the sequence based on target-request performance, integrity, experience, burden, and alternatives. That decision uses procedure evidence. A theory claim would require another question and another measurement plan, so the report leaves that field explicitly unavailable.
Work through Uma's example
Uma completes a new workstation setup in 3/10 opportunities before a request sequence and 6/10 during the sequence phase. Staff deliver the planned three-request sequence in 8/10 phase opportunities; one sequence contains a prompt and one starts after the target request. The record supports a phase-level association and an 80% integrity result. It has no matched disruption test or proportion-of-baseline measure. 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 Uma.
Address Uma's main interpretation risk
Calling 6/10 momentum converts a procedure outcome into a mechanism. Pooling the two integrity deviations hides the delivered arrangement. Frequently completed requests can also become pressure when choice, usefulness, pacing, or withdrawal is weak. 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 Uma
For Uma's request-sequence and momentum boundary audit, 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 Uma.
Use the translational account narrowly for Uma
In the makerspace workstation setup, 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 Uma, while individual clinical conclusions still require direct, accessible, context-specific evidence.
Treat applied persistence models cautiously for Uma
The Mace applied review discusses behavioral persistence, alternative reinforcement, and treatment relapse. For Uma'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 Uma
In research reviewed for Uma, 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 makerspace workstation setup.
Preserve scope, AAC, assent, and access for Uma
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 Uma's communication, health care, food, water, bathroom use, mobility, rest, relationships, safety, and emergency help.
Choose Uma's next bounded action
Uma keeps two setup requests and removes one that feels repetitive. The report uses request-sequence language and leaves behavioral momentum unclaimed. 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 Uma's earlier performance.
Close Uma's persistence review
Review the request-sequence and momentum boundary audit with Uma, 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
- How to Reassess Persistence After Context or Reinforcement Changes
- How to Assess Alternative Reinforcement and Response Persistence
- How to Document Behavioral-Momentum Evidence and Limits
- How to Compare Persistence Across Richer and Leaner Contexts
Sources
- Association for Behavior Analysis International, Basic Principles in Behavior Analysis
- Behavior Analyst Certification Board, BCBA Test Content Outline, 6th edition
- Behavior Analyst Certification Board, Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts
- Council of Autism Service Providers, ABA Practice Guidelines Version 3.0 public summary
- Nevin and colleagues, Behavioral Momentum: Translational Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
- Mace and colleagues, Basing Assessment and Treatment of Problem Behavior on Behavioral Momentum Theory
- Mace and colleagues, Effects of Reinforcer Quality on Behavioral Momentum
- Breaux and Smith, Assent in Applied Behaviour Analysis and Positive Behaviour Support
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Augmentative and Alternative Communication