Problem:
Respond to the following students
Student 1: Assessment Summary:
The client is a 7-year-old male with an existing ASD diagnosis who demonstrates significant deficits across all DSM-5 domains of social communication and restricted/repetitive behaviors. Indirect assessments, including interviews with caregivers and school staff, highlighted ongoing challenges in reciprocal communication, nonverbal social behaviors, peer interaction, behavioral flexibility, sensory regulation, and repetitive motor movements. Direct assessments across home, school, and clinic environments confirmed low rates of social responding, minimal functional eye contact, limited gesture use, and restricted engagement during peer activities. The client also exhibited repetitive hand-flapping and rocking, intense fixated interests (specifically vacuum cleaners), and pronounced auditory sensitivity.
Baseline data indicated elevated rates of protest behavior during transitions, frequent sensory-avoidant responses to moderate noise, and very low engagement in reciprocal or cooperative interactions. Overall, the assessment results point to significant skill deficits in communication and social functioning, paired with behavioral excesses that impact learning, independence, and overall quality of life. Need Assignment Help?
Area I Am Less Confident About:
One area I would like feedback on is the alignment between indirect reports and direct observations, especially regarding the function of certain behaviors. For example, the child's repetitive movements and restricted interests appear to be automatically reinforced, but I am not fully confident that I interpreted the indirect assessment data robustly enough to support that conclusion.
Student 2: I chose a 4-year-old child with ASD who is an early learner with low functional language for my hypothetical exam. I examined early learning, social skills, and communication using the VB-MAPP. The youngster exhibited several missed milestones in manding, tacting, and listener response, particularly for actions and pre-academic ideas, but shown strong skills in visual matching, motor imitation, and enjoying social activities when adults initiated them. A number of VB-MAPP obstacles were identified, including quick dependency, low desire for some learning resources, and problematic behaviors including sobbing and falling to the ground when requests were made. I additionally screened self-help and everyday life abilities using specific parts of the ABLLS-R to provide a more comprehensive picture. The kid required a lot of assistance with dressing, using the restroom, and engaging in independent play, although they were able to feed themselves with limited assistance and adhere to basic routines. Based on this profile, my primary treatment objectives would be to increase listener response, strengthen independent play, reduce problem behavior by teaching replacement skills and setting up clear, consistent reinforcement, and develop functional communication (mands for basic needs and choices).
My interpretation and prioritization of the VB-MAPP hurdles is one aspect of this hypothetical evaluation in which I lack confidence. When determining which objectives should come first, I'm concerned that I could have either overidentified certain obstacles, like prompt dependency, or undervalued others, such low motivation for particular chores. I would appreciate input from my peers on whether it appears fair for me to utilize the VB-MAPP barriers to guide treatment planning, as well as how you choose which obstacles to monitor over time and which to address right away.
Student 3: I created a hypothetical assessment summary based on intake information, a preference assessment, a skills-based assessment, and a functional behavior assessment (FBA). The child in this scenario demonstrates emerging communication skills, primarily using single words to request preferred items, and shows significant distress during transitions or when preferred activities are interrupted. A paired-stimulus preference assessment identified strong motivation for bubbles, trampoline play, and iPad activities. SBA results indicated limited tolerance for waiting, difficulty with behavioral flexibility, and brief engagement in adult-led tasks. The FBA suggested that tantrum behavior was maintained by both escape from transitions or demands and access to preferred items, which aligned with caregiver and teacher reports. These combined results point toward intervention targets such as functional communication, tolerance-building, and supporting appropriate behavior during transitions. One area I am less confident in is converting assessment results into socially significant, meaningful interventions. I feel that creating effective interventions, that are unique to the client, require creativity and can be challenging in some cases.