Full Goal

During a structured collaborative task that requires the student and a peer to share information neither has alone (e.g., barrier games, joint planning, cooperative puzzles), [Student] will produce at least one repair, clarification, or check-in when the partner’s response indicates a mismatch (e.g., ‘wait, you have a different picture?’ or ‘do you mean the red one?’) in 3 of 4 opportunities across 3 sessions, with check-in modality accepted (verbal, AAC, or written), as measured by SLP observation and tally of partner-mismatch events and student repair attempts.

Neurodiversity-Affirming Notes

Traditional “perspective-taking” goals frame the student as failing to model another person’s mind. Research on the double empathy problem (Milton, 2012; Crompton et al., 2020) shows that breakdowns between autistic and non-autistic communicators are bidirectional — both partners are working across a difference in style. This goal reframes the target accordingly:

• The skill is repair, not mind-reading. The student notices a mismatch and acts to resolve it. This is a generalizable communication skill that any conversational partner needs, not a deficit-specific intervention.
• The peer is a collaborator, not a baseline. The goal does not assume the peer’s perspective is “correct” and the student must align to it. Both partners are contributing information; the student’s job is to coordinate, not to defer.
• Modality counts. A typed check-in, an AAC selection, or a gestural confirmation is a repair. Spoken verbal output is one valid form, not the required one.
• Avoid scripts. Pre-teaching “I see what you mean” or “tell me more” can produce hollow phrasing without functional coordination. Score on whether a mismatch was identified and addressed, not on which words were used.

Individualization Guidance

Before using this goal, verify:

• Baseline data on mismatch frequency. Set up trial barrier games and count how often a true informational mismatch occurs. If mismatches are rare in your tasks, the goal isn’t measurable as written — re-design the tasks to make mismatches more likely.
• Peer selection. A peer who dominates the task or gives constant clarifications removes the student’s opportunity to initiate repair. Brief peers if needed, or co-treat with another student who is also working on this goal.
• Sensory and processing load. Barrier games, group settings, and timed pressure can swamp working memory. Specify the format and group size; report success against the specific conditions, not in the abstract.
• What counts as a mismatch event. Define this operationally: a partner statement, question, or action that does not align with the student’s information state. Without operational definition, your tally is noise.
• Do not score “appropriateness.” Score whether the repair occurred. “Appropriateness” judgments smuggle neurotypical conversational norms into the data.

Clinical Notes

This goal targets a single mechanism — noticing partner-information mismatch and producing a repair — at a level that is observable and trainable. It deliberately avoids the umbrella construct of “perspective taking,” which conflates information-state tracking, emotion attribution, and social-norm inference. Each of those needs its own goal if targeted.

The 3-of-4 criterion across 3 sessions is set lower than typical 80% thresholds because mismatch events are infrequent and high-stakes — one missed opportunity per session is a larger proportion of the total. Track absolute counts, not just percentages, so you can see whether opportunities are scarce or repairs are missed.

The double-empathy framing is not a soft alternative — it produces sharper, more functional goals. A student who can repair across communication-style differences is more independent in real classrooms than a student who has memorized “perspective-taking” phrasing for therapy.

Related Goals

• Topic Initiation in Structured Activities — Neurodiversity-Affirming — companion ND-affirming pragmatic goal