“Tell a story,” “use AAC to participate,” and “communicate with peers” are meaningful aims, but each can hide several smaller skills and access needs. Task analysis is a way to describe the steps or conditions involved in a meaningful activity so the team can see where support is needed, teach strategically, and measure progress. It is an instructional planning tool; the goal still needs to describe a functional outcome for the learner. [1, 2]
Start with the participation goal
Choose an activity that matters to the learner: sharing news with a caregiver, joining a class discussion, asking a peer to play, or using AAC to explain a choice. Ask the learner and family which languages and communication modes belong in that activity. Observe the activity in context before writing a sequence of steps. ASHA recommends connecting school goals to documented needs and functional performance, and planning multilingual intervention with the person and family. [1, 3]
Next, note the supports that make participation possible. The communication system must be available and accessible; a partner may need to wait, offer a model, or provide language access. A step the learner cannot perform because the vocabulary is missing from an AAC system is an access barrier, not proof that the learner lacks the underlying language skill. This distinction is a clinical inference from ASHA's emphasis on access, partner training, and language-appropriate AAC. [3, 4]
Break the activity down without losing its purpose
Consider a learner who wants to tell a family member about a school event in Spanish or English using speech, gesture, and AAC. An SLP might observe these components:
- Get the partner's attention in an accessible way.
- Identify the event or person.
- Share what happened and at least one detail.
- Check whether the partner understood and add information if needed.
These are possible teaching and observation steps, not a required script for every conversation. A learner might tell a perfectly effective story in another order or use a culturally familiar storytelling style. The team should value the message and avoid scoring an arbitrary sequence as if it were the communicative outcome. [2, 3]
For each step, record what happens independently, what the partner contributes, the language and mode used, and what changes with support. This lets the SLP identify the true teaching target and prevents a broad goal from being reduced to a collection of isolated worksheet responses. [1, 2]
Turn observations into a measurable goal
Broad target: “Will improve narrative skills.”
Working goal example: “By [date], when sharing a personally meaningful event with a familiar partner and with their communication system available, [learner] will convey the event and two relevant details using an accessible language and communication mode in 3 of 4 sampled conversations across 3 sessions or routines, with no more than one partner prompt, as measured by language samples and partner report.”
The task analysis tells the clinician what to teach and troubleshoot: perhaps the learner needs access to family names on AAC, practice adding a detail, or a partner who pauses long enough. The goal measures whether the learner communicates the event and details. Set the criterion, supports, languages, and time period from the individual's baseline and setting requirements. [1, 3, 4]
Use step-level data during treatment
A brief observation form can list each step as independent, after a model or cue, not yet observed, or blocked by access. Add a note on the message's success. For multilingual learners, identify the language and context for each sample rather than pooling unlike opportunities into one unexplained score. Examine whether performance carries over with another partner, routine, or language when that is a treatment priority. [3, 4]
Teaching methods can include modeling, prompting, time delay, and practice within the complete activity. Some multistep skills are taught one step at a time; others are best practiced as a whole. The choice should be responsive to the learner, not dictated by the existence of a task analysis. Research on AAC instruction supports systematic teaching but also shows that some learners need changes to the procedure and that generalization is not automatic. [2, 5]
What does the research support?
A peer-reviewed study of a personalized AAC intervention for a young adult with Down syndrome used a task analysis of a grocery-shopping activity that included both task actions and communication opportunities. This illustrates how task analysis can place communication inside participation rather than treating device selections as the whole goal. It is a single intervention study, so its results should not be generalized to every learner. [2]
A 2025 systematic review of reading instruction for learners with complex communication needs found task-analytic instruction among commonly used intervention components. The review concerned reading outcomes, not a universal method for writing speech-language goals; it also identified gaps in comprehension and fluency research. [6] A meta-analysis of AAC communication-partner instruction supports attending to partner behavior as part of intervention planning. [7]
Quick planning questions
- What does the learner want to accomplish, and with whom? - Which steps are essential to that purpose, and which reflect an adult's preferred routine? - Are languages, vocabulary, sensory and motor access, and partner supports available? - What is the baseline for the whole activity and for the step that may need teaching? - How will success be observed in real contexts, with the support level recorded?
Use the goal-writing guide for a goal structure and the SLP Goal Bank for editable examples. Task analysis helps personalize those examples; it does not replace an individualized evaluation or the learner's priorities.
References and further reading
1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (n.d.). Documentation in schools. Practice Portal.
2. Babb, S., Jung, S., Ousley, C., McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (2021). Personalized AAC intervention to increase participation and communication for a young adult with Down syndrome. Topics in Language Disorders, 41(3), 232–248.
3. ASHA. (n.d.). Multilingual service delivery in audiology and speech-language pathology. Practice Portal.
4. ASHA. (n.d.). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Practice Portal.
5. Evaluating the use of a backward chaining procedure to teach young autistic children multiple-step requesting using AAC. (2026). Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities.
6. Hudler, S. E., Hurlburt, G., & Brock, M. E. (2025). A systematic literature review of reading instruction for students with complex communication needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities.
7. Kent-Walsh, J., Murza, K. A., Malani, M. D., & Binger, C. (2015). Effects of communication partner instruction on the communication of individuals using AAC: A meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication.