By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
The Performance Diagnostic Checklist-Human Services (PDC-HS) is an informant-based tool used to identify the environmental variables contributing to staff performance gaps in human services settings. Unlike competency assessments that evaluate whether an individual has the skills required for a role, the PDC-HS assesses the antecedent and consequence conditions surrounding performance — determining whether the environment is structured to support the desired behavior. This distinction makes the PDC-HS a function-based assessment tool rather than a person-based one, consistent with the behavior analytic approach of identifying environmental variables rather than attributing performance to individual dispositional characteristics.
The PDC-HS assesses four primary domains: (1) training and knowledge — whether staff have the skill and knowledge needed to perform correctly; (2) task clarification and prompts — whether performance expectations are clearly defined and environmental cues support correct responding; (3) resources and materials — whether staff have the equipment, tools, and materials needed to perform the target behavior; and (4) performance consequences — whether correct performance is reinforced and incorrect performance is differentially not reinforced. Each domain maps onto a category of indicated interventions, so elevated scores guide intervention selection directly.
The PDC-HS 1.1 incorporates several improvements over the original version: revised item wording to reduce ambiguity in responses, updated decision rules that provide clearer guidance for intervention selection when multiple domains are elevated, and a heat map feature for visualizing aggregate results across multiple staff respondents. The 1.1 version also includes guidance on conditions requiring further investigation before interventions are selected — specifically, situations involving conflicting organizational contingencies or systems-level barriers that exceed the individual supervisor's authority to change. These enhancements improve the practical utility of the tool in complex organizational contexts.
The PDC-HS is most appropriate when a clearly defined performance target is not being met and the function of the performance gap is unknown. It is less appropriate when: the performance problem is so severe (safety risk, ethics violation) that immediate intervention is required rather than assessment; when the supervisor already has clear evidence from direct observation that the problem is a specific skill deficit; when organizational politics or role boundaries prevent implementing the interventions indicated by the results; or when the staff member's candid participation in the informant interview cannot be secured. The PDC-HS 1.1 guidance also indicates when further collaborative investigation is needed before intervention selection.
Elevated consequence domain scores indicate that the performance gap may be maintained by insufficient reinforcement of correct performance, presence of competing contingencies that reinforce incorrect performance, or absence of corrective feedback. Indicated interventions include: implementing a performance feedback system (graphic displays of performance data, regular specific feedback from supervisors), establishing recognition systems for meeting performance targets, restructuring task assignments to reduce competing demands, and identifying and modifying organizational contingencies that are inadvertently reinforcing undesired performance. Consequence-focused interventions may require involvement from organizational leadership when systemic incentive structures need to change.
The heat map visualization aggregates PDC-HS responses across multiple staff members, displaying each item's response visually in a color-coded matrix. When multiple staff show elevated scores on the same items or in the same domain, this indicates a systemic problem — an organizational condition that is contributing to performance gaps across the team. When only one staff member shows elevated scores in a domain where others do not, this suggests an individual-level intervention is appropriate. This distinction is critical: applying individual-level interventions (re-training one person) to a systemic problem (missing materials, unclear expectations affecting all staff) will not resolve the performance gap.
Before administering the PDC-HS, supervisors should: read the published literature on the PDC-HS and PDC-HS 1.1 to understand the development, validation, and recommended administration procedures; review the administration guide and scoring procedures for the PDC-HS 1.1 specifically; practice administering the tool in low-stakes contexts before using it with active performance concerns; and seek consultation from an experienced OBM practitioner if interpretation of results or intervention selection is unclear. The BACB Ethics Code requires operating within your scope of competence, which extends to specialized assessment tools like the PDC-HS.
The PDC-HS operationalizes the function-based approach by translating the three-term contingency into an organizational assessment framework. Just as a functional behavior assessment identifies the antecedents and consequences that maintain problem behavior in clients, the PDC-HS identifies the antecedents and consequences that maintain performance deficits in staff. This functional analysis prevents the training fallacy — the assumption that all performance problems are skill deficits — and ensures that interventions are selected based on the identified function of the gap rather than on default organizational responses. Interventions matched to the assessed function produce faster performance improvement and better maintenance than interventions that address the wrong causal variable.
Yes — the PDC-HS can be adapted for telehealth and hybrid contexts by modifying item wording to reflect the specific antecedent and consequence conditions operating in remote environments. For telehealth staff, relevant antecedent factors include technology access, clarity of session procedures for remote delivery, and availability of technical support. Consequence factors include supervisor feedback on remote session quality, organizational recognition for telehealth competency, and the presence of competing contingencies specific to remote work. Administering the PDC-HS in these adapted contexts follows the same administration and interpretation principles as in-person delivery, with results informing telehealth-specific performance improvement interventions.
Several BACB Ethics Code sections apply: 1.07 (Truthfulness) requires that performance assessment processes be presented honestly to staff; 5.05 (Feedback and Evaluation) requires specific, timely performance feedback informed by assessment data; 2.01 (Competence) requires that practitioners using the PDC-HS have adequate training in its administration and interpretation; 2.09 (Confidentiality) governs how assessment data is stored and shared; and 6.01 (Responsibility to the Profession) supports the use of scientifically validated assessment tools like the PDC-HS rather than relying on informal impressions. Organizations have an ethical obligation to use function-based approaches to performance management, not only in client services but in how they treat and develop staff.
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.
You Down With PDC? Why Isn't Everybody? — Adriana Anderson · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $20
Take This Course →1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $20 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
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.