5 Supervision Mistakes You're Also Probably Making (and What to Do Instead)

This article expands on the foundation laid in our earlier post, The Top 3 Supervision Mistakes BCBAs® Make -- And How to Fix Them. In that piece, we explored three core pitfalls: passive supervision, vague feedback, and one-size-fits-all oversight. If you haven’t read it yet, start there for context and introductory strategies.

Read: The Top 3 Supervision Mistakes BCBAs® Make -- And How to Fix Them

Now, let’s build on those ideas with five more advanced and research-informed supervision traps—and how to fix them.

You’re logging hours. You’re giving feedback. You’re meeting the 5% requirement. So why does supervising RBTs® still feel like chasing your tail?

If you’re a BCBA® who supervises RBTs®, chances are you’ve made some of these mistakes. Not because you're careless—but because the system is complex, time is tight, and the BACB® rules don’t always reflect the nuance of human learning.

Let’s break down more common RBT® supervision traps, what they cost you (and your clients), and how to fix them with evidence-backed strategies.

Mistake #1: Over-Reliance on In-the-Moment Correction

The trap: You’re providing feedback during sessions—lots of it. You assume this equals good supervision.

The problem: Real-time feedback without structured follow-up often gets lost in the moment. It can feel more like correction than coaching. It doesn’t allow for reflection, planning, or generalization.

The fix:

• Schedule dedicated supervision time separate from sessions.

• Use a feedback sandwich: Start with strengths, address needs, end with reinforcement.

• Add a debrief template to capture learning moments.

• Incorporate peer feedback opportunities. A 2013 study by Sliwinski et al. found peer feedback can be just as effective as expert input for skill development.

• Prioritize feedback that supports accuracy rather than speed. Wiskow et al. (2020) highlight that well-timed, structured feedback promotes long-term fluency.

Mistake #2: Failing to Document Quality Feedback

The trap: You jot down that supervision happened. Maybe even what skill was reviewed. But where’s the data on quality?

The problem: Without rich documentation, you lose patterns over time. You can’t assess growth, trends, or the impact of your supervision.

The fix:

• Use qualitative plus quantitative notes (e.g., "used 3-step prompting with 90% accuracy; struggled with fading prompts").

• Build a supervision rubric to track feedback depth, independence, and performance trends. Turner et al. (2016) recommend aligning rubrics with observable behaviors and contextual variables.

• Structure logs by skill cluster (e.g., prompting, reinforcement), not just by date.

• Incorporate insights from Parsons et al. (2012) that emphasize documenting environmental factors and response quality to ensure effective, personalized supervision.

Mistake #3: Supervising from a Checklist Mentality

The trap: You’re checking off Task List items. You assume this means the RBT® is trained.

The problem: Knowing a term isn’t the same as applying it. Behavior fluency, generalization, and ethical decision-making require more than exposure.

The fix:

• Shift to a competency-based model. Turner et al. (2016) propose a framework that includes sequencing, fluency checks, cultural responsiveness, and performance generalization.

• Incorporate scenario-based training and role-plays to promote decision-making in real contexts.

• Build in follow-ups 2-3 weeks after initial training to assess retention and generalization.

  

Mistake #4: "All Compliance, No Connection"

The trap: You’re laser-focused on documentation. You’ve got the audit trail. But the RBT® seems disengaged.

The problem: Supervision becomes a task, not a relationship. Without intentional connection, burnout risk increases, and learning stalls.

The fix:

• Ask RBTs® about their preferred feedback and learning styles.

• Co-create supervision goals that match their professional values and motivations.

• Introduce ACT-informed strategies like values clarification and defusion techniques to encourage psychological flexibility.

• Use the SAMHSA 4 R’s: Realize trauma is common, Recognize signs, Respond with compassion, and Resist re-traumatization. Taylor et al. (2019) support using these principles to enhance supervisory relationships and build RBT® resilience.
  

  

Mistake #5: Neglecting Onboarding and Follow-Up

The trap: You onboard quickly, check off Task List basics, then jump into sessions.

The problem: Without a strong start and consistent follow-through, skills don’t stick. Expectations remain unclear. Mistakes repeat.

The fix:

• Design an onboarding sequence that includes clear expectations, ethics, documentation practices, and reinforcement systems.

• Schedule monthly check-ins to review goals, stressors, and progress.

• Consider this stat: Beyond Autism Services reported a 97.1% RBT retention rate with a mentorship-based onboarding system—compared to the 64% industry average.

• Leverage microlearning strategies. Van den Bossche et al. (2015) found that spaced, focused sessions promote knowledge retention while reducing cognitive overload.
  

  

What This Means for You

Fixing these five supervision mistakes doesn’t require doubling your hours or reinventing the wheel. But it does require intentionality.

The goal is to create transformational supervision, not transactional oversight. When your systems focus on growth, relationships, and long-term skill development, you:

• Reduce turnover

• Improve clinical outcomes

• Feel more aligned with your purpose

And down the line, when tools emerge that help automate and track these best practices in real time? You’ll be the BCBA® who’s already ahead of the curve.

Want to dive deeper into high-quality supervision practices? Explore our related CEU courses at Elevate Your ABA Supervision.

References

Beyond Autism Services. (2023). Organizational case study: RBT onboarding and retention. Internal report.

Parsons, M. B., Rollyson, J. H., & Reid, D. H. (2012). Evidence-based staff training: A guide for applied settings. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(2), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391823

SAMHSA. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://ncsacw.samhsa.gov/userfiles/files/SAMHSA_Trauma.pdf

Sliwinski, M., Garcia, Y., & Kiefer, S. (2013). Peer vs. expert feedback in behavior skills training: A comparative analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-013-9175-1

Taylor, B. A., LeBlanc, L. A., & Nosik, M. R. (2019). Compassionate care in behavior analysis: A model for practice. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(4), 889–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00312-0

Turner, L. B., Fischer, A. J., & Luiselli, J. K. (2016). Best practices for behavioral supervision and training of paraprofessionals. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0115-6

Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. (2015). The effectiveness of microlearning: A review of the literature. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(7), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-10-2014-0071

Wiskow, K. M., Wilder, D. A., & Austin, J. L. (2020). The effect of feedback accuracy and timing on skill retention in behavior analysis supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 40(3–4), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2020.1794917