Explain what a speaker likely means in a social situation
Live goal preview
By the annual IEP review date, given 10 short video clips or written social scenarios that include indirect requests, sarcasm, or hints, the student will explain what the speaker likely means and name the clue (words, situation, or tone) that points to that meaning independently with at least 70% accuracy on social scenarios with indirect or nonliteral language, across 3 consecutive therapy sessions, as measured by opportunity-by-opportunity data collected during each therapy session.
Baseline: 30% accuracy.
- Condition
- Observable behavior
- Criterion
- Measurement method
Measurability check10 of 10 met
All structural checks are met.
Met: Observable behavior. The behavior is stated as an action.
Met: Condition. The goal states when or under what conditions the behavior occurs.
Met: Unit fits the behavior. Percent accuracy is a reasonable way to quantify this behavior.
Met: Explicit criterion. The success criterion is stated with a number and unit.
Met: Mastery rule and schedule. Mastery rule and collection schedule are stated.
Met: Method produces the metric. Opportunity (trial) recording can produce percent accuracy data.
Met: Review timeframe. The goal includes a timeframe.
Met: Baseline and target compatible. Baseline and target use the same unit and show change in the intended direction.
Met: Aligned with area of need. The wording still relates to Pragmatic Language.
Met: Level of support. The level of support is defined.
What this checks: the goal's structure and wording, using fixed rules: observable behavior, condition, criterion, method, mastery rule, timeframe, baseline/target consistency, and support. It can't judge whether the goal is appropriate, ambitious enough, or legally sufficient for a particular student. That requires assessment data and the IEP team.
About this template
- Level guidance
- For students who often take indirect requests, sarcasm, or hints literally, and who want to follow these in conversations with peers. Present levels, the SLP's assessment, and the student's own goals, not grade, decide fit. Different interpretation styles are not deficits; the aim is giving the student more information and options, not changing how they communicate.
- Baseline considerations
- Present 10 or more scenarios of each type and record whether the student explains the likely meaning, gives a literal interpretation, or is unsure. Ask the student which kinds of situations they find confusing; their examples make the best probes.
- Usage notes
- Score a response correct when the student states a likely intended meaning that the SLP and a second scorer agree fits the scenario, and names a clue that supports it. Accept reasonable alternative interpretations. Asking the speaker directly ("Are you joking?") is a valid strategy and should be taught too. Do not require the student to respond in a particular style; the response option is the student's choice.
- Known limitations
- Scenarios are simpler than real conversation, and speaker intent is often ambiguous even for adults. Cultural background affects how sarcasm and hints are used. The goal does not measure what the student does in real situations; ask the student and family how it is going.
- Source
- Original IEP Atlas draft (AI-assisted) based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. Template ID
sl-prag-003.
Short-term objectives (optional)
When are objectives required?Federal IDEA regulations require benchmarks or short-term objectives only for students who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards (34 CFR §300.320(a)(2)(ii)). Your state or district may require them more broadly.
Matching data sheet
Accuracy tracker. Your goal is scored as percent correct, so the sheet records number correct and number attempted.
Accuracy tracker
Percent accuracy- Student label:
- Target:
- with at least 70% accuracy on social scenarios with indirect or nonliteral language
- Mastery rule:
- across 3 consecutive therapy sessions
- Collection schedule:
- during each therapy session
- Method:
- Opportunity (trial) recording
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, given 10 short video clips or written social scenarios that include indirect requests, sarcasm, or hints, the student will explain what the speaker likely means and name the clue (words, situation, or tone) that points to that meaning independently with at least 70% accuracy on social scenarios with indirect or nonliteral language, across 3 consecutive therapy sessions, as measured by opportunity-by-opportunity data collected during each therapy session.
| Date | Task / materials | # correct | # attempted | % accuracycorrect ÷ attempted × 100 | Support levele.g., independent, 1 verbal prompt | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preview shows 4 of 12 rows.
- Score only items the student attempted unless the goal defines a fixed set of items. Use the same denominator every session.
- Percent = numerator ÷ denominator × 100. Round to one decimal place.
- Record the support actually provided, even if the goal is independent performance.
The CSV opens in Excel or Google Sheets with formulas for the calculated columns. Sheets are blank: IEP Atlas doesn't store student data.