Audio Block

Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

Data Storytelling Practice

Choose the best way to communicate the data story for each scenario.

1. Communicating Progress

Scenario: The client’s independent responding on the handwashing task increased from 4/10 steps to 8/10 steps over one week.

The client is doing much better with handwashing overall.

This is subjective and contains no measurable data.

Independent steps increased from 4/10 to 8/10 this week, showing measurable progress.

Correct: provides concrete, comparative, objective data.

The client seemed more motivated and tried harder this week.

“Seemed motivated” is a state inference.

2. Communicating Potential Barriers

Scenario: Today the client completed 2/10 matching trials independently, compared to 7/10 yesterday. Parent reports the child slept only 4 hours.

Client had a bad day due to poor sleep.

Too causal: does not state data and assumes internal state.

Independent matching decreased from 7/10 yesterday to 2/10 today; parent reported significantly reduced sleep.

Correct: presents trend + contextual variable without attributing cause.

Client was very unfocused and could not concentrate today.

Subjective & describes inferred mental states (“unfocused”).

3. Communicating Events That Impact Data

Scenario: The client had three visitors arrive during session. Engagement dropped from 80% to 40% during the last 30 minutes.

Client became distracted when family came over.

“Distracted” is a state inference; does not present measurable data.

Engagement decreased from 80% to 40% following arrival of visitors; monitor for environmental disruptions.

Correct: describes data pattern + relevant event neutrally.

Client shut down because of the extra people.

“Shut down” is vague and subjective.

Find the Missing Data

Some documentation pieces are present in this note, and some are not. Check only the elements that are missing or too vague to meet Medicaid-style standards.

Sample Session Note

11/12/2025, 3:00–5:00 PM: RBT provided 97153 in the client’s home. Worked on PECS Phase III (12 trials, 9/12 independent) and handwashing chaining (8 steps practiced).

Client didn’t want to sit after break and had a “meltdown” but calmed down eventually. Parent watched for the last part of session. Overall, it was a good session. – S. Roberts, RBT

Start and end times are missing

In this note, start and end times are documented (3:00–5:00 PM), so this field is present.

Duration of services is missing

Duration can be inferred from 3:00–5:00 PM (2 hours). Best practice is to state it clearly, but it is not completely absent here.

Specific programs/targets are missing

Programs are named (PECS Phase III and handwashing chaining), so this piece is present.

Measurable data are missing

Some objective data are present (12 trials, 9/12 independent; 8 steps practiced), even though more detail could be added.

Objective behavior description is missing or too vague

“Didn’t want to sit” and “meltdown” do not describe what the client did (topography, duration, frequency).

Intervention and client response are missing

The note does not specify what BIP strategies or prompts were used, or how the client responded to them.

Parent/caregiver involvement details are missing

“Parent watched” is vague; it does not describe modeling, coaching, or practice trials.

Provider signature/credentials are missing

The note includes a name and credential (“– S. Roberts, RBT”), so this requirement is met.

Subjective/feelings language is used instead of objective wording

Phrases like “meltdown” and “good session” are subjective or non-clinical and should be replaced with observable, measurable descriptions.

Data Storytelling