These answers draw in part from “STOP TRAINING! START ANALYZING: Diagnosing RBT Performance Problems Using Performance Analysis” by Adam Ventura, PhD BCBA (BehaviorLive), and extend it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. Clinical framing, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →A skill deficit means the staff member cannot perform the behavior correctly even under optimal conditions — the behavior is not in their repertoire. A performance deficit means the skill is present but is not being performed correctly or consistently under natural conditions. The classic test is to provide optimal conditions: clear instructions, demonstration, immediate reinforcement for correct performance, removal of competing demands. If performance improves substantially under these conditions, the problem is not a skill deficit — the skill exists, but the natural environment is not supporting it. If performance does not improve even under optimal conditions, skill training is indicated. Most chronic performance problems after initial training are performance deficits, not skill deficits — which means retraining is often the wrong first response.
An informal performance analysis works through the same four-domain logic. For task clarification: can the staff member state what they are supposed to do, when, and under what conditions — without reference to materials? For equipment/materials: is everything they need to implement correctly physically accessible during sessions? For training: has the staff member ever demonstrated correct implementation in a similar context? For consequences: when correct implementation occurs, does it contact any reliable reinforcement — or does incorrect implementation contact reinforcement (avoidance, easier client interaction, social reinforcement from peers)? Walking through these four questions before deciding on an intervention takes five to ten minutes and reduces the probability of choosing the wrong intervention class.
Common antecedent problems include: procedures written at a level of complexity that exceeds working memory capacity during a session (requiring RBTs to remember multiple conditional rules without job aids); data collection forms that are confusing or require interpretation during client interaction; session materials that are not organized in a way that supports correct implementation sequence; unclear or ambiguous criteria for when to implement specific components (e.g., when does a behavior constitute a 'mild' versus 'significant' instance requiring different responses); and the absence of environmental reminders for procedures that are not frequently used but are critical when needed. Each of these is an antecedent intervention opportunity: job aids, procedure simplification, environmental organization, and clear decision rules can all be implemented without any staff training.
Consequence analysis asks two parallel questions: what follows correct implementation, and what follows incorrect implementation? If correct implementation is never followed by reinforcement — the supervisor is only present to correct errors, positive feedback is rare, and the natural environment provides no differential consequence for accurate versus inaccurate performance — then correct implementation is on extinction. If incorrect implementation produces negative reinforcement (avoiding a difficult client interaction through a shortcut), positive reinforcement (social attention from a peer who also uses the shortcut), or simply neutral consequences (nothing happens either way), then the consequence environment is maintaining the problem behavior. The intervention is a consequence redesign: add reinforcement for correct performance, remove inadvertent reinforcement for incorrect performance.
The framing that works best positions the conversation as collaborative problem-solving, not performance evaluation. Opening with genuine curiosity — 'I want to understand what's making this difficult' — rather than corrective intent — 'we need to talk about your implementation' — establishes a different interactional context. Asking specifically about what the RBT experiences as barriers, what conditions make correct implementation easiest, and what aspects of the procedure they find confusing communicates that you are analyzing the environment, not the person. Following the conversation with changes to the environment (new job aid, revised procedure, adjusted schedule) that reflect what you heard confirms that the diagnostic conversation produced genuine change — which itself reinforces future honest disclosure.
Retrain when: the staff member cannot demonstrate the target behavior correctly even under optimal conditions; a new procedure has been introduced that has not been formally trained; or assessment reveals that the staff member lacks specific component skills that are prerequisites for the target behavior. Address antecedent variables when: the skill can be demonstrated in structured situations but fails in natural sessions; the error pattern suggests confusion about when to implement rather than how; or multiple staff members are making the same error with the same procedure. Address consequence variables when: correct implementation has been fluently demonstrated but is not maintained in natural sessions; the error correlates with specific contextual conditions that suggest reinforcement of the incorrect pattern; or the staff member reports that correct implementation feels aversive or unrewarding in some way.
The Performance Diagnostic Checklist – Human Services (PDC-HS) is a validated assessment tool developed by Carr and colleagues for identifying environmental contributors to staff performance problems in human services settings. It consists of structured interview questions organized into four domains: task clarification and prompting, equipment and materials, training, and performance consequences. The PDC-HS is available in the published research literature — the original validation paper by Carr and colleagues appears in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis — and scoring guidance is provided in the publication. Some practitioners have also developed adapted versions for specific ABA settings, and training in its use is available through OBM workshops and continuing education offerings.
When multiple performance problems co-occur, prioritize based on clinical impact: address the problems most directly affecting client outcomes or client safety first. For each problem, conduct the diagnostic analysis independently — the causes of different performance problems in the same staff member are often different, and a single intervention rarely addresses multiple distinct performance issues. An RBT who fails to implement extinction correctly (likely an antecedent/task clarification issue) and also fails to complete session notes on time (likely a consequence or scheduling issue) has two different performance problems requiring two different analyses and interventions. Bundling them into a single retraining response addresses neither effectively.
Documentation should include: the specific performance problem operationally defined, the PDC-HS domain(s) identified as contributing to the problem, the evidence supporting the domain identification (staff interview responses, observation findings, review of existing training records), the intervention selected and the rationale connecting it to the diagnostic findings, the timeline for implementation, and the criteria for assessing intervention effectiveness. This level of documentation demonstrates that the supervisory response was analytically grounded, provides accountability for follow-through, and creates a record that supports Code 3.03's requirement for ongoing performance monitoring. It also protects the organization if a performance problem ultimately requires personnel action — the record shows that systematic support was provided before any adverse consequence.
Yes, and this is one of its most valuable applications. Proactive performance analysis — reviewing the environments into which new RBTs will be placed before they start — can identify potential task clarification gaps, missing materials, or reinforcement structure problems before they produce performance failures. New procedure rollouts can be analyzed against the four PDC domains before implementation: does the written procedure provide adequate task clarification? Are all materials specified and available? Has training been designed for the required skill level? Is there a reinforcement structure for correct implementation in place? Addressing these factors before implementation rather than after performance problems emerge is more efficient and more supportive of positive staff experiences.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
STOP TRAINING! START ANALYZING: Diagnosing RBT Performance Problems Using Performance Analysis — Adam Ventura · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $20
Take This Course →We extended these answers with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind the topic, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
280 research articles with practitioner takeaways
279 research articles with practitioner takeaways
258 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $20 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.