ACVREP CATIS common mistakes
ACVREP CATIS · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Selecting a device or feature based on the disability label or a product name rather than on the specific, observed functional task the person needs to perform.
Candidates study devices in categories (e.g., 'screen reader,' 'AAC app') and map categories to diagnoses, so a question describing a functional limitation gets answered with a category match instead of a task-match.
What to do instead
Before answering, restate the item's functional demand in a single sentence ('the person must do X, in setting Y, with Z support available'), then eliminate any option that does not directly serve that demand regardless of how well-known the product is.
Treating the IEP/504 distinction, or the difference between 'access' and 'progress in the general curriculum,' as interchangeable when choosing an accommodation route.
Candidates memorize statute names but not the eligibility and entitlement logic, so they pick the law that 'sounds right' rather than the one whose eligibility criteria the scenario actually meets.
What to do instead
For each scenario, first identify the eligibility trigger (does the student need specialized instruction, or only accommodations to access?), then apply the corresponding framework; drill on short vignettes where the two frameworks would produce different answers.
Recommending a device without specifying the training, customization, and maintenance plan that makes it usable.
Assessment-focused study emphasizes feature matching and underrepresents the service-delivery side, so candidates stop at 'which device' instead of 'which device plus what supports.'
What to do instead
Practice answering every AT-selection item with a three-part check: device, who is trained and how, and who maintains/troubleshoots; choose the option that includes the support structure when one is offered.
Confusing a feature-matching assessment with a full SETT/consideration process, and answering as if one substitutes for the other.
Both appear in assessment content and share vocabulary (environment, task, tools), so candidates collapse them into a single step.
What to do instead
Memorize the distinct purpose of each: consideration determines whether AT is needed at all; feature matching identifies specific characteristics; build a mental flowchart and place each item on it before choosing.
On collaboration items, choosing the option where the AT specialist makes the decision or writes the plan alone.
Specialist expertise is emphasized in training, and candidates equate 'most knowledgeable' with 'decides,' missing the team-decision and family-role principles.
What to do instead
Default to the option that includes the student/family as decision-makers and distributes implementation across the team; treat any lone-decider option as suspect unless the scenario explicitly involves an emergency or safety issue.
Documenting AT use in vague terms ('uses AT for reading') instead of describing the tool, the task, the setting, and the data.
Candidates write what they would say aloud in a meeting rather than what a legally defensible, measurable record requires, and they underestimate how documentation items are scored.
What to do instead
Practice rewriting vague statements into the tool-task-setting-data format until it is automatic, and select the most specific measurable option on documentation items rather than the most general one.
Answering ethical/confidentiality items by disclosing or sharing student AT information whenever a colleague or new team member asks.
Collaboration is framed positively ('share with the team'), and candidates over-apply it, missing consent, need-to-know, and record-release limits.
What to do instead
Apply a two-question filter to every disclosure option: is there consent or a legal exception, and does this person need the information to serve the student? If either answer is no, eliminate the option.
Choosing a reading or writing AT solution that bypasses the skill being taught when the goal is skill acquisition, or the reverse.
Candidates conflate 'access now' with 'instruction,' so they pick text-to-speech or word prediction for a task where the IEP goal is decoding or spelling accuracy.
What to do instead
Classify the item's goal first: is it access to content or development of a skill? Match the tool to the goal, and flag any option that removes the very practice the goal requires.
Mismatching AAC or hearing technology to the user's sensory, motor, and communication profile (e.g., recommending a high-tech SGD for a user with no reliable selection method, or overlooking FM/remote-microphone access needs).
Device familiarity drives the answer, and candidates skip the prerequisite check (reliable access method, aided language exposure, listening environment) that the item is testing.
What to do instead
For every communication/hearing item, verify prerequisites in order: access method, receptive language/auditory access, then device sophistication; eliminate any recommendation that outruns the user's verified access method.
Assuming a mainstream device or built-in accessibility feature is sufficient without checking whether it meets the specific task, or dismissing mainstream tech as inadequate without checking its features.
Candidates hold a bias toward dedicated AT (or toward free built-ins), so they answer from preference rather than from a feature-by-feature comparison against the task.
What to do instead
For mainstream/access-technology items, list the required features from the scenario and check each candidate option against that list; choose the least restrictive option that meets every required feature.