Acceptability and Feasibility of Virtual Behavior Analysis Supervision

Simmons et al. (2021) sent an online survey to BCBA trainees. They asked how well virtual supervision worked during COVID-19.

The survey looked at ease, comfort, and total client hours. It compared these ratings to past in-person supervision.

Trainees liked virtual meetings. They said the format was easy to use and still helpful.

Yet most still wanted at least some face-to-face time. Client hours also dropped while supervision stayed online.

Fronapfel et al. (2020) extends these findings. That paper lists 50 ways trainees can keep earning hours from home. It fills the gap Simmons found when direct hours fall.

Rispoli et al. (2020) also extends the work. It gives ready-made tele-supervision templates. You can use them to add the structure trainees still want.

MSáez-Suanes et al. (2023) puts the study in context. Their review shows most BCBA supervision papers are opinion pieces. Simmons et al. is one of the few that offers real survey data.

Hajiaghamohseni et al. (2021) seems to clash at first. Their survey shows wide variation in how BCBAs supervise. Yet both studies agree: clear guidelines make practice more consistent. The difference is focus—general vs. virtual settings.

You can keep using Zoom for supervision, but add one in-person or hybrid session each month. Track client hours weekly; if they slip, plug in ideas from Fronapfel’s 50-hour list and use Rispoli’s telehealth templates to keep quality high.