To separate joint attention from requesting and information seeking, preserve Quinn's exact message, referent, listener, context, apparent purpose, requested action or item, information gap, partner response, and what happens next. Ask Quinn when possible. A comment can request action, a question can share interest, and one bid can serve several purposes. Classify only when the evidence matters to a decision and supports a bounded conclusion.

Preserve the full message episode

Record Quinn's words or AAC output, gesture, referent, partner, preceding event, available items, requested or obtained action, question response, later interaction, and corrections.

Ask what Quinn meant

Use an accessible follow-up when clarification is useful and welcome. Record Quinn's response as direct evidence while allowing that purpose can change during an exchange.

Look at downstream partner action

Delivery of an item, provision of information, shared acknowledgment, continued discussion, or no response can inform interpretation. A consequence alone still does not prove the original purpose.

Keep mixed and uncertain categories

One message may seek information and share enthusiasm, or request help while inviting engagement. Mixed and unavailable are legitimate codes.

Use this sequence for the differential

Preserve the episode, ask Quinn, map possible outcomes, review history, classify only at the needed precision, state uncertainty, and choose the partner response that best supports communication.

Build Quinn's sharing-requesting-information differential

Create one versioned sharing-requesting-information differential for the community train-history project. Include Quinn's priority, shared event, bid and response definitions, authorship, accessible forms, initiation or response status, opportunity and clock rules, partner availability and actions, joint engagement, requests and information alternatives, prompts, context, health, client experience, choice, invalidity, missingness, withdrawal, evidence limits, qualified owner, correction, and reassessment trigger. Store only decision-relevant information with role-limited access.

Validate Quinn's evidence

Reproduce 18 bids, six primarily sharing, five information questions, four requests, three mixed, and 12 initial partner request labels. Verify exact message, referent, item or action outcome, information gap, continuation, Quinn's report, partner response, and uncertainty.

Connect Quinn's evidence to a decision

The differential can guide partner response, AAC vocabulary, opportunity design, and measurement. It should remain unnecessary when the partner can simply respond to Quinn's recognizable message and clarify respectfully.

Work through Quinn's example

Quinn makes 18 train-project bids. His report and downstream outcomes support six primarily sharing bids, five information questions, four requests for materials or action, and three mixed bids. Partners initially label 12 as requests based on item presence alone. Review changes the categories while retaining Quinn's words and uncertainty. Preserve every planned and valid opportunity, shared-event version, accessible bid or response, authorship, partner action, prompt, repair, request or information alternative, timing, access and health state, withdrawal, invalid event, correction, and unresolved item. This fictional example demonstrates one assessment control. It supplies no diagnosis, universal social-communication hierarchy, treatment effect, legal conclusion, coverage decision, payment promise, or outcome guarantee for Quinn.

Address Quinn's main interpretation risk

Classifying by sentence form or nearby items can misread purpose. A device message such as train may share excitement, request the train, ask which train, or reopen a conversation. Adult inference without Quinn's report and partner outcome can harden a guess into a clinical fact. Review shared-event access, communication form, partner availability, response timing, requests, information seeking, independent enjoyment, prompts, task cues, partner directiveness, history, context, health, fatigue, preference, direct experience, and design strength separately. A convincing sequence cannot make an unsafe, inaccessible, unwanted, unauthorized, or irrelevant social goal clinically appropriate.

Keep scope and authority clear for Quinn

For Quinn's sharing-requesting-information differential, the CASP public summary supplies high-level ABA behavioral-health-treatment scope for autistic people, with licensed detail outside this page. The current BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, client involvement, consent and assent when applicable, assessment, medical needs, risk, data, documentation, and evaluation for covered people. The BACB outline is examination content. These sources supply no individualized joint-attention target, developmental prognosis, legal authority, or requirement that Quinn look at another person's face.

Read the applied bid study critically for Quinn

Taylor and Hoch studied three children using separate teaching for responding to and initiating bids. The study's response definition required item looking, a spoken comment, and looking back at the instructor; its initiation definition also used specified point and speech forms. Results differed across components and participants. The study illustrates the need to separate response, initiation, and generalization. Its gaze and vocal topographies are historical study definitions, not universal requirements for Quinn.

Keep JASPER findings tied to their populations for Quinn

A pilot randomized study involved minimally verbal children ages three to five in a preschool and substituted two 30-minute JASPER sessions weekly for part of usual programming over 12 weeks. The treatment group showed greater play diversity and classroom differences in gestures and unengaged time. A later parent-mediated comparative study measured joint engagement during an independent parent-child assessment with novel toys. These findings belong to those early-childhood programs and measures; they establish no universal target, dose, mechanism, or outcome for Quinn.

Separate caregiver and peer opportunities for Quinn

The caregiver-mediated randomized study treated responding and initiating as distinct outcomes and discussed how adult directiveness can reduce opportunities to initiate. A three-dyad peer study coded a gaze shift plus vocalization and trained peer behaviors including bids, responses, waiting, prompts, and redirection. These studies support measuring partner opportunity and behavior. Their participant groups and response forms do not establish a required social style for Quinn.

Preserve assent and communication access for Quinn

Breaux and Smith propose individualized assent and withdrawal practices while describing an evolving evidence base. Their paper is practice guidance rather than a separate BACB mandate. ASHA's AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to their tools or devices. Give Quinn an accessible way to share, ask, correct, accept, pause, decline, or withdraw. Do not require eye contact, speech, proximity, or social endurance as the price of participation.

Choose Quinn's next bounded action

Quinn adds separate share, ask, and help starters to his device but can still use the shorter train message. Partners clarify only when the next action is uncertain. Record the qualified owner, source evidence, effective date, current activity and partner version, ordinary supports, communication and health state, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement route, and reassessment trigger. Preserve the earlier record when partners, shared events, communication, settings, systems, outcomes, health, or priorities change. A repaired arrangement creates a dated phase rather than an error in Quinn's prior participation.

Close Quinn's assessment

Review the sharing-requesting-information differential with Quinn, the qualified behavior analyst, relevant partners, access owners, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that shared-event access, initiation, response, partner behavior, requesting, information seeking, independent enjoyment, joint engagement, and downstream outcomes remain separate; every denominator is reproducible; AAC and basic access remain protected; urgent needs received action; and conclusions stay bounded to sampled conditions. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required review is complete.

Related resources

Sources