These answers draw in part from “Using Assessment Tools to Avoid Blame and Increase Collaboration for Supervisees and Caregivers” by Ansley Hodges, BCBA-D (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 →The Performance Diagnostic Checklist-Human Services (PDC-HS) is a structured assessment tool developed to identify environmental variables contributing to employee performance problems in human service organizations. It was developed by Florence DiGennaro Reed and colleagues within the OBM tradition as a systematic alternative to person-based attribution of performance problems. The tool assesses four primary domains — task clarification, resources, prompts and reminders, and consequences — through a structured interview and environmental observation process. The resulting domain profile guides the selection of performance improvement interventions matched to the environmental variables most likely maintaining the performance gap. The PDC-HS has a research base supporting its use in identifying performance problems and guiding effective interventions across multiple human service settings.
The PDC-HS is most appropriate when a staff member shows a consistent performance gap in a defined skill or task area, when the gap is not explained by an obvious single cause, or when initial interventions have not produced expected improvement. It is particularly valuable when supervisors notice a pattern of similar performance problems across multiple staff, which may indicate a systemic antecedent or training issue rather than an individual employee concern. It is less necessary for straightforward training needs that are clearly identified or for compliance issues where the expected behavior is unambiguous and the environmental analysis is already complete. The PDC-HS is contraindicated as a primary response to performance problems that involve professional conduct or ethical concerns requiring immediate supervisory action.
Task clarification assesses whether the employee has clear, specific, and observable performance expectations — including whether expectations have been communicated, whether they match the actual job requirements, and whether the employee can accurately describe what is expected. Resources domain assesses whether the materials, time, physical environment, and organizational support needed for performance are available. Prompts and reminders domain assesses whether the antecedent environment reliably occasions the desired behavior — whether there are checklists, supervisory cues, environmental arrangements, or scheduling structures that prompt performance. Consequences domain assesses whether correct performance is reinforced, whether errors receive specific corrective feedback, and whether the overall consequence structure maintains the desired behavior over time.
The PDC-P is a parallel tool adapted for parent and caregiver contexts, assessing barriers to implementation of home-based behavioral programs. Its domain structure is similar to the PDC-HS but adapted for the family context: it assesses whether the caregiver received adequate training to implement the program competently, whether the materials and environmental arrangements needed for implementation are available in the home, whether there are sufficient prompts and reminders to support consistent implementation, and whether the consequence structure — natural and programmed — supports the behavior occurring. The PDC-P is most useful when a caregiver is not implementing home programs as expected and the barrier is not immediately obvious. It provides a structured alternative to attributing non-compliance to motivation and should be used before concluding that a caregiver is non-compliant.
The collaborative framing of the PDC-HS is essential for its effectiveness. The purpose — understanding what in the environment is making the expected performance difficult — should be stated explicitly at the outset. Phrasing questions collaboratively ('I want to understand what might be getting in the way') rather than evaluatively ('I need to understand why you're not doing this') changes the function of the assessment from interrogative to problem-solving. Supervisors should complete a portion of the assessment through environmental observation rather than relying entirely on staff self-report, which reduces the interrogative quality and demonstrates genuine curiosity about the work environment. Sharing the findings with the staff member as a basis for collaborative intervention planning reinforces that the assessment was genuine rather than performative.
In ABA settings, the most commonly identified barriers in PDC-HS assessments tend to cluster in the task clarification and consequences domains. Task clarification deficits are frequent in organizations that rely on written program descriptions without providing sufficient competency-based training — staff can read the BIP but have not practiced the procedures to the point of fluency. Consequence deficits — specifically, insufficient feedback and reinforcement for correct implementation — are ubiquitous in busy supervision contexts where supervisory contact is reactive rather than proactive. Resource deficits related to session materials and physical environment are less universal but common in under-resourced community settings. Prompt deficits are often revealed when staff have learned procedures in structured training but work in environments without reminders or job aids to support consistent implementation.
Supervisors who consistently use environmental assessment before attributing performance problems to individuals build supervisory relationships characterized by trust, honesty, and collaborative problem-solving. Staff learn that their supervisor approaches performance problems with curiosity rather than judgment, which makes them more likely to bring concerns forward proactively rather than waiting for problems to escalate. Over time, staff may also internalize the environmental attribution logic themselves, applying it to their own clinical problem-solving with clients and caregivers. The PDC approach is thus both a supervisory tool and a behavioral conceptualization model — using it consistently teaches the analytical framework that defines behavior analytic thinking.
Yes, and this is one of its highest-leverage applications. Rather than using the PDC-P only reactively when implementation problems emerge, BCBAs can use it proactively during the initial program design process to assess potential barriers before implementation begins. A brief PDC-P assessment during initial caregiver intake — asking about available time, physical environment, existing routines, and relevant skills — informs program design decisions: whether a written or picture-based instruction format is more appropriate, what the natural prompting environment looks like, whether the prescribed reinforcers are feasible in the home context. Programs designed with these variables in mind require fewer mid-implementation revisions and produce more consistent initial implementation.
Code 1.07 requires behavior analysts to consider cultural and linguistic variables that affect service delivery and to modify their approach accordingly. For PDC-P administration, this means conducting the assessment in the family's preferred language, using an interpreter when needed rather than relying on the clinician's imperfect second language, and asking about cultural practices and family routines that may affect program implementation rather than assuming a normative implementation context. The PDC-P's barrier-identification framework is well-suited to surfacing culturally specific implementation challenges — different daily routines, extended family involvement, cultural practices around child behavior or reinforcement — that might otherwise be invisible to a clinician operating from a single cultural lens.
PDC-HS findings should be documented in the supervisory record as the functional basis for any performance improvement plan or training modification. The documentation should specify which domain areas were assessed, what the assessment revealed, and which domain-specific interventions were selected as a result. This documentation protects the BCBA against claims that performance management decisions were arbitrary or punitive, demonstrates adherence to Code 2.09's functional assessment requirement, and provides a baseline for evaluating whether interventions produced the expected outcomes. PDC-P findings should similarly be documented in the clinical record as part of the caregiver training plan, with intervention modifications and their rationale recorded alongside the assessment findings.
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.
Using Assessment Tools to Avoid Blame and Increase Collaboration for Supervisees and Caregivers — Ansley Hodges · 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.