Function-Based Coaching and the PDC-HS: Improving Staff Performance in Clinical and School Settings

Overview & Clinical Significance

Staff performance is the mechanism through which every behavior analytic intervention reaches the client. A brilliantly designed behavior plan that is implemented poorly produces poor outcomes. A straightforward intervention implemented with high fidelity produces the results it was designed to produce. This presentation by Daniel Wagner brings together two approaches that target the same fundamental problem, staff performance improvement, from complementary angles.

The first approach, presented by Jess Olson from the University of Utah, describes a tiered coaching model implemented in a large school district. This model applies the same multi-tiered systems of support framework used for student behavior to staff performance. Tier 1 provides universal training and support to all staff. Tier 2 offers targeted coaching for staff who need additional support. Tier 3 delivers intensive, individualized interventions for staff whose performance remains below expectations after Tier 1 and 2 supports. Critically, the coaching at all tiers is function-based, meaning that before prescribing a solution, the coach identifies why the staff member's performance is deficient.

The second approach, presented by Daniel Wagner from Utah State University, focuses on the Performance Diagnostic Checklist-Human Services (PDC-HS), an assessment tool designed to identify the environmental variables maintaining staff performance problems. The PDC-HS systematically evaluates whether performance deficits result from insufficient training, unclear task clarification, inadequate resources, or weak contingencies of reinforcement and punishment. By diagnosing the function of the performance problem, the PDC-HS directs the intervention to the actual cause rather than applying a generic solution.

The clinical significance of both approaches lies in their recognition that staff performance problems are behavioral phenomena subject to the same principles that govern all behavior. When a technician does not implement a prompt hierarchy correctly, the question is not what is wrong with this person but what environmental variables are maintaining this performance deficit. Perhaps the technician was never adequately trained in the procedure. Perhaps the written protocol is ambiguous. Perhaps correct implementation requires more effort than incorrect implementation and no differential consequence exists. Each of these causes requires a different intervention, and applying the wrong one wastes resources while leaving the performance problem unresolved.

Olson's demonstration that function-based coaching in schools reduced special education referrals and produced maintenance over a five-year period illustrates the downstream clinical benefits of getting staff performance right. When teachers and school staff implement behavioral strategies effectively, fewer students escalate to the point of needing intensive services. Prevention through competent implementation is always more efficient and more humane than remediation after a crisis.

Background & Context

The application of behavior analytic principles to staff performance has a long history in organizational behavior management (OBM), a subfield of behavior analysis that focuses on improving performance in work settings. OBM research has consistently demonstrated that performance problems in human services are more often attributable to environmental and organizational factors than to individual employee characteristics.

The Performance Diagnostic Checklist was originally developed as a tool for identifying the variables responsible for employee performance problems in organizational settings. The PDC-HS is an adaptation of this tool specifically for human services environments such as ABA clinics, schools, and residential facilities. The assessment consists of structured interview questions and observation components organized around four domains: training, task clarification and prompting, resources, materials and processes, and performance consequences.

The training domain evaluates whether the employee has received adequate instruction in the task. This includes initial training, ongoing training updates, and opportunities to practice the skill with feedback. A performance deficit attributable to insufficient training requires a training intervention, not a motivational one.

The task clarification domain evaluates whether the employee has clear, accessible descriptions of what they are expected to do. Job descriptions, written protocols, visual prompts, and checklists fall into this category. An employee who performs inconsistently because the written protocol is ambiguous or inaccessible needs better task clarification, not more training on the same unclear material.

The resources domain evaluates whether the physical and organizational infrastructure supports performance. This includes whether necessary materials are available, whether the physical environment is arranged to facilitate the task, and whether scheduling and workflow allow adequate time for the task. An employee who cannot implement a protocol because the required materials are locked in a storage closet across the building has a resource problem, not a skill or motivation problem.

The consequences domain evaluates the reinforcement and punishment contingencies operating on the employee's performance. This includes whether correct performance is noticed and acknowledged, whether performance feedback is provided, and whether there are meaningful consequences for meeting or failing to meet performance standards. An employee who implements a protocol correctly without any acknowledgment and implements it incorrectly without any consequence has no environmental reason to prefer correct implementation.

The tiered coaching model from the school district context applies a similar logic within a systems framework. Universal supports (Tier 1) address the environmental context for all staff. Targeted supports (Tier 2) address the needs of staff who require more specific guidance. Intensive supports (Tier 3) address individual performance barriers through personalized intervention. The five-year maintenance data from Olson's work is particularly notable because it suggests that function-based coaching produces durable changes in staff behavior when the organizational system supports ongoing implementation.

Clinical Implications

Applying function-based approaches to staff performance has direct implications for how supervisors structure their oversight of clinical staff and how organizations design their quality assurance systems.

The most immediate clinical implication is that supervisors should assess the function of performance problems before intervening. The default response in many ABA organizations when a technician is not implementing a procedure correctly is to retrain. The technician is pulled from sessions, shown the correct procedure again, and sent back to implement it. If the performance problem was caused by a training deficit, this intervention will work. If the problem was caused by unclear written protocols, inadequate materials, or weak performance consequences, retraining will not solve it, and the supervisor will conclude that the technician cannot learn the procedure rather than recognizing that the intervention did not match the problem.

The PDC-HS provides a structured method for making this determination. Rather than guessing at the cause of a performance problem, the supervisor administers the assessment, identifies which domains are contributing to the deficit, and selects interventions that target those specific domains. This matched intervention approach is more efficient than trial-and-error and produces better outcomes because it addresses the actual cause.

The tiered coaching model has implications for how organizations allocate their supervisory resources. Rather than providing the same level of oversight to all staff, a tiered model directs the most intensive resources to the staff who need them most while providing efficient, system-level supports to the majority of staff who perform adequately with standard guidance. This is both an ethical use of limited supervisory resources and a clinically effective approach to workforce management.

For school settings specifically, Olson's data showing reduced special education referrals following implementation of function-based coaching is clinically significant. Special education referral is a high-stakes process for students, and many referrals are driven by behavioral challenges that could be managed in the general education setting if teachers had adequate behavioral support. When behavior analysts provide effective coaching to school staff, they prevent unnecessary restrictive placements and help students access their education in less restrictive environments.

The five-year maintenance finding deserves attention because maintenance of staff behavior change is one of the most challenging aspects of performance improvement. Initial improvements following training or coaching often fade when the training event becomes distant and competing contingencies reassert themselves. Maintenance over five years suggests that the coaching model produced changes in the organizational context, not just in individual staff behavior, creating an environment where effective practices were sustained by ongoing systemic supports.

For clinical organizations, implementing PDC-HS based interventions requires supervisors who understand how to interpret the assessment results and translate them into targeted interventions. This is a supervisory skill that goes beyond clinical expertise in behavior analysis. Supervisors need training in organizational behavior management principles, performance analysis, and intervention design at the organizational level.

Ethical Considerations

Addressing staff performance through function-based approaches carries ethical implications for both the supervisor-supervisee relationship and the broader organizational context.

Code 4.05 requires supervisors to design and implement performance monitoring and provide feedback. Function-based performance assessment aligns well with this requirement because it treats performance deficits as behavioral phenomena with identifiable causes rather than as character flaws requiring correction. When a supervisor uses the PDC-HS and discovers that a technician's performance problem stems from unclear protocols or inadequate resources, the responsibility for the deficit shifts from the individual to the system. This reframing is both technically accurate and ethically important because it prevents the supervisor from attributing to the employee a problem that the organization created.

Code 2.01's requirement for effective treatment has a direct connection to staff performance. If a client is not making progress because the technician implementing their program does so with low fidelity, the supervisor has an obligation to address the fidelity problem. Identifying the function of the fidelity problem and implementing a matched intervention is the most effective approach to fulfilling this obligation. Providing generic retraining that does not address the actual cause of the problem fails to protect the client's right to effective treatment.

The ethical use of performance data requires transparency. Staff whose performance is being assessed using tools like the PDC-HS should understand the purpose of the assessment, how the results will be used, and what interventions may follow. Code 4.07 addresses the supervisor's obligation to inform supervisees about evaluation criteria. When performance assessment tools are introduced without adequate explanation, staff may perceive them as surveillance rather than support, which damages the supervisory relationship and may actually worsen performance through increased anxiety.

Organizational ethics intersect with individual ethics when the PDC-HS reveals systemic problems. If the assessment consistently identifies resource deficits across multiple staff members, the ethical responsibility lies with the organization to address those resource problems, not with individual employees to overcome them through extra effort. A supervisor who identifies systemic issues through function-based assessment and advocates for organizational change is fulfilling a broader ethical obligation to the clients served by that organization.

The coaching relationship in school settings raises ethical considerations about scope of practice. When behavior analysts provide coaching to teachers and school staff, they must ensure that the coaching remains within their professional competence. Coaching on the implementation of behavioral strategies is within scope. Coaching on instructional pedagogy, classroom management philosophies, or curriculum design may not be, depending on the behavior analyst's training and the specific content involved. Clear communication about the scope of coaching prevents misunderstandings and maintains professional boundaries.

Assessment & Decision-Making

Implementing function-based approaches to staff performance requires systematic assessment at both the individual and organizational levels.

At the individual level, the PDC-HS provides a structured framework for identifying the variables maintaining a specific staff member's performance deficit. Administration involves interviewing the staff member and their supervisor, observing performance in the natural environment, and reviewing relevant documentation such as training records, written protocols, and performance feedback records. The assessment produces a profile indicating which of the four domains, training, task clarification, resources, or consequences, are contributing to the deficit.

Interpreting PDC-HS results requires discriminating between indicated and non-indicated interventions. An indicated intervention targets a domain identified by the assessment as contributing to the performance problem. A non-indicated intervention targets a domain that the assessment did not identify as problematic. For example, if the PDC-HS indicates that the performance problem is maintained by weak performance consequences and adequate training has already been provided, implementing additional training is a non-indicated intervention that will waste resources without solving the problem. The indicated intervention would address the consequence contingency by establishing feedback systems, recognition programs, or other contingency management strategies.

The decision about which interventions to implement when multiple domains are indicated requires prioritization. If a staff member's performance problem involves both a training deficit and a resource deficit, addressing the resource deficit first may be more efficient because no amount of training will produce correct performance if the necessary materials are unavailable. In other cases, training should come first because the staff member needs to know what to do before environmental supports can facilitate doing it. The sequencing depends on the specific situation and requires the supervisor's clinical judgment.

At the organizational level, tiered assessment determines which level of support each staff member needs. Tier 1 supports should be evaluated through regular monitoring of performance metrics across all staff. When universal supports are effective, the majority of staff should meet performance expectations. If a large proportion of staff are not meeting expectations despite Tier 1 supports, the Tier 1 system itself needs revision before assigning individuals to higher tiers.

Tier 2 assessment identifies staff who are not responding to universal supports and evaluates whether the issue is a skill deficit, a performance deficit, or an environmental barrier. Tier 2 interventions might include enhanced performance feedback, brief skill booster trainings, peer mentoring, or modified work arrangements. Assessment at this tier can incorporate abbreviated PDC-HS administration to guide intervention selection.

Tier 3 assessment involves comprehensive, individualized evaluation for staff whose performance problems persist despite Tier 1 and Tier 2 supports. At this level, the full PDC-HS is administered, direct observation of performance is extended, and the intervention plan is individualized to address the specific constellation of variables maintaining the performance deficit.

Ongoing monitoring of intervention effects is essential at all tiers. Performance data should be collected continuously, not just during assessment periods, so that the effects of interventions can be evaluated and modified based on the data.

What This Means for Your Practice

If you supervise direct service staff, begin integrating function-based thinking into your performance management approach. The next time a staff member's performance does not meet expectations, resist the impulse to immediately retrain. Instead, ask four questions: Does this person know how to perform the task correctly? Does the written protocol clearly describe what is expected? Does the environment provide the resources needed for correct performance? Are there meaningful consequences for performing correctly versus incorrectly?

If you want to formalize this process, familiarize yourself with the PDC-HS assessment tool and practice administering it with a willing colleague before using it in a supervisory context. The assessment is relatively brief and can be incorporated into existing supervisory workflows without significant additional time investment.

For organizational leaders, consider whether your organization's approach to staff performance improvement is function-based or default. If every performance problem is addressed with retraining regardless of its cause, your organization is spending resources inefficiently and failing to solve problems that originate in the environment rather than the individual. Implementing a tiered coaching model may improve both staff performance and supervisor efficiency by directing the right level of support to each staff member.

If you work in school settings, the five-year maintenance data from the tiered coaching model provides a compelling argument for sustained investment in behavioral coaching for school staff. Present this model to school administrators as a preventive approach that reduces the need for intensive interventions and restrictive placements by supporting effective behavioral practices at the classroom level.