Channel 01
Cue capture
Can you quote or accurately restate the word, number, unit, time window, role boundary, or instruction that controls the choice?
Why use a stopping rule?
A practice session can feel productive simply because the item counter keeps rising. That number does not show whether the learner can explain the decisive cue, distinguish the strongest distractor, locate the governing source, or correct a repeated reading error. Without a stopping rule, the session may continue long after attention has shifted from careful review to rapid answer selection.
A stopping rule is a decision written before the next block begins. It defines the evidence for continuing, switching activities, or ending the block. It does not declare that a topic is permanently mastered. It only chooses the next review action from the evidence available now.
The rule should use process evidence rather than a score alone. A high percentage with weak explanations may call for source review. A lower percentage with precise error labels and improving rationales may justify another small mixed block. Fatigue, repeated unsupported assumptions, and inability to restate the rule are signals to consolidate rather than add volume.
Four evidence channels
Channel 02
Distractor diagnosis
Can you name why the strongest wrong option fails here: wrong task, wrong unit, unsupported fact, overbroad conclusion, or role mismatch?
Channel 03
Source connection
Can you identify the current official or authorized training source that governs the term or boundary instead of relying on answer memory?
Channel 04
Attention quality
Are you still reading every qualifier and comparing every option, or are speed, guessing, and repeated rereading replacing deliberate review?
The six-step decision routine
Set the block size. Choose a small fixed block, such as five or ten fictional questions. Do not decide the size after seeing the score.
Write the stop conditions first. Define what would trigger source review, consolidation, or a break before starting the block.
Record process evidence. For each item, mark cue captured, distractor explained, source located when needed, and attention intact.
Find the dominant error mechanism. Count mechanisms, not just incorrect responses. Repeated unit loss requires a different action from repeated unsupported inference.
Choose one next action. Continue a small block, switch to a source-and-example drill, or stop new questions and consolidate the log.
Schedule the next check. A stop decision is temporary. State when and how the same rule will be tested again with different fictional surface details.
Interactive next-action planner
Select the description that best matches the block you just completed. The browser-only tool returns a study-process suggestion. It does not score competence, prescribe clinical action, or predict certification outcomes.
Your next-action note will appear here.
Use the result as a planning prompt. Keep the original item log and current official sources as the evidence record.
Three fictional stopping-rule examples
Example 1: accurate answers, weak explanations
A learner selects four of five intended answers but cannot explain why the closest distractors fail. The written rule says: "If two or more answers rely on familiarity rather than a quoted cue, stop adding items and write an option-by-option rationale." The next action is consolidation, not a larger question set. The percentage is recorded, but it does not override the missing explanation evidence.
Example 2: repeated unit loss
Across a fictional measurement block, the learner repeatedly reports totals when the prompt requests a value per unit of time. The rule says: "When one mechanism appears twice in a five-item block, switch to a source-and-example drill for that mechanism." The learner reviews the governing term, writes the unit beside each value, and creates two neutral calculations before returning to mixed questions.
Example 3: explanations improving, attention intact
A learner misses two items but accurately identifies the decisive cue afterward, explains the evidence gap in each distractor, and connects the rules to current sources. The predetermined rule permits one more small transfer block when process evidence improves and attention remains deliberate. The next questions should change the surface wording rather than repeat the same examples.
A reusable 30-minute session
Minutes 0-3: Write the block size and three decision conditions. Example: continue only when cues and distractor explanations are specific; switch when one error mechanism repeats; stop when attention quality falls.
Minutes 4-15: Complete a small mixed block. For every item, record the command, decisive cue, selected option, strongest distractor, and the reason that distractor fails in this stem.
Minutes 16-21: Group the log by mechanism. Useful labels include task mismatch, dimension mismatch, dropped unit, unsupported assumption, observation-versus-inference error, role boundary, and conclusion too broad for the evidence.
Minutes 22-26: Check the current official or authorized source for the dominant rule. Write a one-sentence boundary in your own words and a neutral example that does not contain real client information.
Minutes 27-30: Apply the stopping rule. Record one next action and the conditions for the next check. Do not expand the session simply to repair a disappointing percentage.
Quality checks for a useful rule
- The rule is written before the next block, not invented to justify a preferred result.
- It uses observable study-process evidence rather than confidence or percentage alone.
- It identifies a specific next action: continue, switch, consolidate, or take a break.
- It does not label a topic permanently mastered after one short block.
- It sends uncertain requirements back to a current official or authorized source.
- It never uses real client data, secure examination content, or recalled administered questions.
- It preserves the error log so a later session can test whether the mechanism changed.
- It includes a later transfer check with different fictional wording or numbers.
Current official references
Independent practice materials are supplements. Verify current eligibility, examination, ethics, training, competency-assessment, and supervision requirements with the official source.
Optional practice app and disclosure
For learners who want a mobile question bank as one part of an independent review plan, see RBT Practice Questions 2026 on Google Play.
Commercial relationship: Dahmani Limited created and publishes this free stopping-rule planner and owns the linked Android app, so it may benefit if readers install the app. This resource and the app are independent. They are not affiliated with, approved by, sponsored by, or endorsed by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) or Pearson VUE. BACB owns its marks and official materials.
All examples are original and fictional. This page does not reproduce recalled, leaked, secure, or administered examination items, provide clinical advice, replace required training, competency assessment, supervision, or official materials, or guarantee eligibility, certification, employment, or an examination result. AI tools assisted with drafting and page layout; the publisher reviewed the finished content, links, and disclosures.