Appendix G Case Study

The client’s performance in the initial few days of the program experienced a negative trend, which is visible in the graph in appendix G. The possible reasons for the trend were discussed with the client’s primary instructor therapist and the supervising therapist. Revisions were proposed although ultimately deemed unnecessary. A lack of attention was hypothesized as the main obstacle linked to the client’s low performance. Possible changes that were considered included: holding up the pictures at eye level or labeling the cards with the corresponding names prior to the Sd. However, the supervising therapist suggested that there were no issues with the program plan, the problem rested with the client’s attending behaviour. Thus, ITs were asked to ensure they had the client’s attention before delivering the Sd. If attention was an issue, the IT should stop running the program to limit the impact on the data. The data collected initially could be considered a non-comprehensive representation of the client’s true abilities with identifying his picture due to an attention problem.
Moreover, the IT mentioned that the client has issues with scanning all of the pictures presented prior to answering.
Also, there are similar trends in other receptive ID programs for this client. A possible position bias was noticed by two separate ITs and could provide an additional expiation as to the low rates of performance. It was stated that the client showed less awareness to the pictures on the left side of the array, which connects to the point regarding the client’s poor scanning behaviour. The revisions to the program plan proposed were made with the intent to counteract these obstacles. Although not presently utilized, these revisions remain options if learning becomes
unsuccessful.
As shown in the graph in appendix G, there was a 5-day break from programming. This may have played a part in the client’s low performance once he was back in the demanding educational setting. As well, the client started undergoing ABLLS assessment on February 16th on top of his regular programming. This meant the demands placed on the client were very high. The combination of poor attention and high demands is a possible explanation as to the unstable performance trend displayed in the data.
In conclusion, there are outstanding barriers to the client’s learning, leading to the highly varied performance in the development of this skill. Despite these problems, the data is consistent with the client’s performance in other programs therefore it should not be considered to be an indication of an inappropriate target. Future considerations for the implementation of this program should focus on capturing and maintaining the client’s attention, as well as reducing the issues associated with limited scanning behaviours. These considerations are vital to the client’s successful attainment of the attendance skill.