To separate model access from motor sensory and communication barriers, check whether Sol can perceive the relevant model, understand the task, reach the materials, and produce an accessible response form. Preserve AAC and assistive technology, permit agreed equivalents, and route vision, hearing, pain, strength, coordination, or motor questions to qualified professionals. Repair access before interpreting weak matching, then preserve the original and repaired phases.

Audit access from model to response

Check line of sight, contrast, sound, captions, language, pace, perspective, device function, body position, material reach, response effort, sensory conditions, and a usable communication route.

Ask Sol and specialists directly

Sol's report can identify pain, unclear movement, sensory load, preferred perspective, or an easier response form. Specialist assessment may be needed before a clinician interprets a motor or sensory pattern.

Define equivalent response forms

Specify how an adapted switch, alternate limb, tool, AAC selection, partner-assisted access, or different movement path can meet the same practical outcome. Preserve authorship and avoid a partner producing Sol's response.

Repair before retesting

Restore the chosen view, communication, equipment, positioning, and health supports. Mark the repaired presentation as a new version and keep prior events visible.

Use this sequence for the differential

Audit each link, record Sol's experience, route specialist questions, define equivalents, repair access, collect a small valid sample, compare phases cautiously, and choose the next useful action.

Build Sol's model-access differential assessment

Create one versioned model-access differential assessment for the adapted recreation equipment lesson. Include Sol's priority, model and response definitions, relevant matching dimensions, equivalent forms, trained or novel status, opportunity and clock rules, access, prompts, rules, task cues, direct outcomes, observed model outcomes, context, history, client experience, choice, invalidity, missingness, withdrawal, alternative control, evidence limits, qualified owner, correction, and reassessment trigger. Store only decision-relevant information with role-limited access.

Validate Sol's evidence

Reproduce 16 demonstrations, 10 initially accessible, six failed-access events, 7/10 matches, and 5/6 after repair. Verify event-level condition joins, model view, sound, language, AAC, materials, motor form, health, fatigue, assistive technology, choice, and phase dates.

Connect Sol's evidence to a decision

Sol's evidence assigns system repair before a new imitation target. The behavior analyst can then decide whether remaining errors concern the modeled relation, while occupational therapy, physical therapy, vision, hearing, speech-language, or medical professionals address questions within their scopes.

Work through Sol's example

Sol receives 16 equipment demonstrations. Only 10 are accessible because six have a blocked view, missing captions, or an unreachable control, with conditions recorded per event. Sol matches 7/10 accessible demonstrations. After the six failed events are repaired and repeated as a new phase, Sol completes 5/6 using an adapted switch. The phases remain separate. Preserve every planned and valid opportunity, model version, accessible presentation, response, equivalent, prompt, rule, task cue, consequence, timing, access and health state, withdrawal, invalid event, correction, and unresolved item. This fictional example demonstrates one assessment control. It supplies no diagnosis, universal imitation hierarchy, treatment effect, legal conclusion, coverage decision, payment promise, or outcome guarantee for Sol.

Address Sol's main interpretation risk

A low score can reflect a hidden model, inaudible cue, language mismatch, painful movement, unstable posture, unavailable AAC, or inaccessible control. Adding condition counts can also double-count one event. A successful repair shows better access and performance together, rather than proving the earlier barrier caused every miss. Review model access, matching criteria, motor and sensory demands, communication, prompts, rules, task products, direct outcomes, prior learning, context, health, fatigue, preference, direct experience, and design strength separately. A convincing sequence cannot make an unsafe, inaccessible, unwanted, unauthorized, or irrelevant imitation goal clinically appropriate.

Keep scope and authority clear for Sol

For Sol's model-access differential assessment, 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 imitation assessment, motor diagnosis, legal authority, or requirement that Sol copy another person.

Use generalized-imitation studies narrowly for Sol

Young and colleagues studied four children with autism using reinforced training and nonreinforced probes across vocal, toy-play, and pantomime response types. Imitation generalized within trained response types and did not generalize across types in that experiment. A three-participant facial-model study reported generalization to unreinforced facial probes for two participants and inconsistent probe responding for one. These small studies show why Sol's trained examples, probe history, response classes, and consequences must remain visible. They supply no universal probe ratio, mastery criterion, or prognosis.

Separate monitoring and later learning for Sol

Taylor, DeQuinzio, and Stine evaluated three children with autism in a sight-word arrangement. Test performance was more accurate when the study required monitoring responses related to a peer's response than when participants only encountered the peer's response. The authors described the analysis as preliminary. The result motivates measuring accessible monitoring and later performance separately for Sol; it does not establish a universal component sequence or prove learning from another person's consequence in every context.

Expect model and format effects to vary for Sol

Marcus and Wilder compared peer and self video models while teaching textual responses, and later conversation performance differed by child. An older peer-model study involved four children and five discrimination tasks; correct responding increased after peer modeling in that specific design. These studies support documenting model, task, media, and person-level results. They do not establish that a peer, self, live, or video model is generally superior for Sol.

Preserve assent and communication access for Sol

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 Sol an accessible way to ask, correct, accept, pause, decline, or withdraw. Do not require eye contact, speech, copying, or removal of communication access as the price of participation.

Choose Sol's next bounded action

Sol chooses a side view, captions, and the adapted switch. The center adds these settings to the equipment profile and tests them before each lesson. Record the qualified owner, source evidence, effective date, current model and task version, ordinary supports, access and health state, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement route, and reassessment trigger. Preserve the earlier record when models, responses, settings, systems, equipment, consequences, health, or priorities change. A repaired arrangement creates a dated phase rather than an error in Sol's prior performance.

Close Sol's assessment

Review the model-access differential assessment with Sol, the qualified behavior analyst, relevant partners, access owners, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that model exposure, accessible monitoring, immediate matching, later performance, observed-consequence learning, generalization, prompt or rule control, direct outcomes, and theoretical hypotheses 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