Abstract
Individuals seeking certification as board certified behavior analysts (BCBAs) require training in both hard and professional (soft) skills. Trainees seeking certification complete coursework, supervised fieldwork experience, and a BCBA exam that assesses mastery of hard skills. However, training and mastery of soft skills is not as defined. BCBAs are also expected to maintain these skills throughout their career. Previous research has shown that soft skills are viewed as important by clients and their caregivers but are not consistently demonstrated from those providing services. Research also suggests that BCBA trainees may not consistently receive training on soft skills. The current study presents the results of a survey distributed to individuals who supervise BCBAs on the proficiency of hard and soft skills demonstrated by their supervisees. The results suggest future directions for the research and training of soft skills for current and future BCBAs.
Keywords: Professional skills, Soft skills, Graduate training, Training practices, Advancement practices, Promotion
Board certified behavior analysts (BCBAs) must demonstrate numerous competencies to obtain and maintain their credential as outlined in the current BCBA Task List and Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (Behavior Analyst Certification Board [BACB], 2017, 2020). These competencies include both hard and professional (soft) skills. Hard skills are those that are job specific, such as conducting functional assessments and designing and implementing interventions to teach functional skills and decrease challenging behaviors. Soft skills are those related to the interpersonal, communicative, and organizational skills an individual demonstrates with colleagues, clients, and caregivers. Examples of soft skills include effectively prioritizing activities, giving and accepting feedback well, demonstrating empathy and compassion to others, and independent problem-solving skills.
Individuals seeking a BCBA credential must successfully complete several requirements, such as coursework, supervised fieldwork, and a BCBA exam (BACB, 2022). Much of the content covered in these requirements are hard skills (i.e., job specific) and the ethical practices that comprise them. Although it is reasonable to expect that certain soft skills are likely discussed and practiced as they relate to the performance of various hard skills, guidance on the training and mastery of soft skills is not well-defined. For instance, although the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts includes examples of soft skills critical to ethical practice (e.g., collaborating with colleagues), it is unclear how these skills should be specifically trained and assessed (BACB, 2020, 2.10).
Researchers in human-service professions, such as health care and human resources, have identified numerous soft skills that are important for individuals to display in their daily work. For example, Dolev et al. (2021) described 10 soft skills important for health-care workers to demonstrate including interpersonal relations and collaboration, flexibility and innovation, and empathy. The authors then developed a supplemental tool that educators in health care could apply to existing curricula to embed the teaching of these soft skills with hard skills. Richmond (2021) summarized research on the importance of communication, empathy, adaptability, collaboration, and problem-solving skills in human resource roles. The author noted these soft skills are frequently identified by employers as skill deficits by their employees and applicants. In response, the author recommended the development of individualized or cohort-specific performance- and competency-based training curricula designed to address observed soft-skill deficits.
Researchers have also begun to gather information about the soft skills of behavior analysts through a series of studies aimed at assessing respondents’ views on specific soft skills. For example, Taylor et al. (2019) conducted a survey with caregivers of individuals receiving services from BCBAs to determine the quality of therapeutic relationships (compassionate care). The authors found that although caregivers considered empathy and compassion to be essential behaviors of their service providers, these skills were inconsistently observed. LeBlanc et al. (2020) conducted a follow-up survey with current BCBAs to determine whether respondents received explicit training during their coursework or supervised fieldwork on compassionate care. The majority of respondents reported that they did not receive specific training on this topic during their coursework or supervised experience. Instead, most respondents indicated they independently pursued learning opportunities on compassionate care. Although Taylor et al. and LeBlanc et al. investigated the proficiency and training of one soft skill (i.e., compassionate care) and found a need for further training, it remains unclear whether their results apply to other types of soft skills.
Other researchers have investigated the characteristics of skilled clinicians, some of which likely include soft skills. For example, Zayac et al. (2021) collected data on the characteristics and skills that BCBAs attribute to exemplary behavior analysts. The authors first asked respondents to submit up to five qualities they associated with an exemplary behavior analyst. The authors then aggregated the responses into a list of 35 characteristics. They then asked respondents to rate the importance of each of the characteristics and to select their top 10. Among the skills respondents selected as the top 10 skills of an exemplary behavior analyst were the qualities of being an effective communicator, analytical, and client centered. Some of the top-rated qualities from this survey were rather broad, such as being “professional.” However, being professional likely consists of several component soft skills. Therefore, it would be beneficial to identify more specific soft skills that may comprise these broader characteristics.
Further investigation of soft skills is warranted to identify the skills that BCBAs frequently display or require additional training. The BACB’s Supervision Training Curriculum Outline (BACB, 2018) includes recommendations for measuring and teaching soft skills to supervisees such as time management, development of problem-solving skills, prioritizing activities, flexibility, adapting social skills to the audience, and organization. Nevertheless, supervisors report being uncertain of how to measure and teach these soft skills during supervised fieldwork experience (Sellers et al., 2019). Although previous research has provided data on the caregivers’ perspectives and training on specific soft skills, additional research is warranted to investigate the extent to which a broader range of soft skills are demonstrated by BCBAs in their workplace. As paralleled in other human-service professions (e.g., health care and human resources), the broader identification of soft skills that are important to the job of a BCBA and are being demonstrated inconsistently can provide directions for future research on how to best teach these skills to current BCBAs and BCBA-trainees (Dolev et al., 2021; Richmond, 2021). In addition, gathering data on specific soft skills that are necessary for advancement and promotion may encourage BCBA trainees to seek opportunities to learn these skills and encourage training programs to teach these skills to produce leaders and innovators in the field of behavior analysis. A population well-suited to provide information on soft skills that are needed for employment and promotion is BCBAs who serve in a supervisory capacity for other BCBAs (e.g., those in a senior or clinical director role).
The purpose of the current study was to assess how often various soft skills are demonstrated, which soft skills are the most important for the job of a BCBA, which are the most likely to lead to a promotion, and which are the most in need of improvement. We surveyed BCBAs who supervise other BCBAs to report their observations about the prevalence and importance of various soft and hard skills to the job of a BCBA.
Method
Participants
Individuals with BCBA or BCBA-D credentials were invited to respond to the survey. Similar to LeBlanc et al. (2020), we recruited participants through the Behavior Analyst Certification Board’s (BACB) email distribution service, regional professional organizations (Mid-American Association for Behavior Analysis and Texas Association for Behavior Analysis), and posts on the authors’ personal Facebook accounts. All individuals with BCBA or BCBA-D credentials and all current members of the professional organization received the recruitment message through the BACB’s and regional organization’s email services, respectively. Due to the nature of the distribution modalities, it is unclear how many individuals received and opened the recruitment message.
All surveys in which respondents indicated that they either assisted with or lead the supervision of BCBAs for their respective organizations were included in the analysis. Respondents were not required to answer every question in the survey to participate. For example, if a respondent primarily worked in a supervisory and training role but did not assist with determinations about promotions and advancements within their organization, they were not required to answer questions related to those practices. Therefore, some surveys included in the analysis were incomplete. A total of 262 surveys were recorded. Forty surveys were excluded from further analysis because the respondents indicated that they did not assist with or lead the supervision of BCBAs for their organization. An additional 32 responses were excluded from further analysis after reviewing and removing all spam responses (see below). Thus, 189 surveys were analyzed.
Instrumentation
The survey was developed within Qualtrics, with enabled settings to prevent multiple submissions and to anonymize responses (i.e., omit IP addresses and location data). The survey allowed respondents to return to previous questions (except for the first question of the survey) and start, leave, and then return to the survey within 1 week of their last response to the survey.
The survey included a maximum of 25 questions. (A copy of the survey is available from the second author upon request.) Some of the questions were formatted as follow-up questions that only appeared contingent on responses to a previous question. Questions were formatted as a mixture of multiple choice, rating scales, and open response. Questions were divided into three sections: demographics, observation and proficiency of hard and soft skills, and the training and advancement practices of the respondent’s organization. Before the second and third sections of the survey, we provided respondents with a definition of both hard and soft skills. The definition of hard skills was “those that are included on the BACB's exam for entry level behavior analysts. These are job-specific skills, such as conducting functional assessments and designing and implementing interventions for skill acquisition or behavior reduction.” The definition of soft skills was skills “related to one’s social or communication skills with clients, caregivers, or other staff members. Examples of “soft” skills include effectively prioritizing activities, giving and accepting feedback, solution-based problem identification, building and maintaining positive relationships, time management, professional communication, demonstrating empathy and compassion to others, flexibility, and independent problem-solving skills.”
The purpose of the survey was to collect information from individuals involved in the supervision and training of BCBAs on their observations and experiences regarding the proficiency of various hard and soft skills demonstrated by their supervisees. The experimenters designed questions to assess the relative proficiency of hard and soft skills of BCBAs and measure the relevance of these skills for job performance and advancement opportunities. For example, one question asked respondents to rank the relative importance of various hard and soft skills. Another question asked respondents to identify and rank which hard and soft skills were most likely to lead to a promotion or new work opportunities.
Prior to selecting soft skills to include in the survey, the second author contacted several organizations that employ behavior analysts who work in various settings (e.g., schools, clinics, client homes, community settings, vocational sites). Individuals in those organizations were asked to nominate soft skills that were important for their BCBAs to display and lead to success in their workplace. Based on their responses and alignment with many of the soft skills included in the BACB Supervision Training Curriculum Outline, the authors included the 12 most frequently identified soft skills. The 12 soft skills included in the survey were effectively prioritizing activities, giving and accepting feedback, solution-based problem identification, building and maintaining positive relationships and interactions, time management, professional communication, demonstrating empathy and compassion to others, balancing results- and relationship-driven behavior, flexibility, independent problem-solving skills, attention to detail, and effective collaboration. We included brief examples for three of the soft skills (solution-based problem identification, balancing results- and relationship-driven behavior, and independent problem-solving skills) to help respondents categorize behavior related to more abstract skills. The example for solution-based problem identification was a BCBA “identifying that other staff members are arriving late to work and offers solutions to address the problem.” The example for balancing results- and relationship-driven behavior was a BCBA “balancing active listening while a caregiver describes a problem with the identification of strategies that can be used to address the problem.” The example for independent problem-solving skills was a BCBA “using available resources to solve the problem before requesting assistance.”
Demographics
The first section of the survey collected demographic data on respondents. In particular, respondents were asked to indicate their credential level (BCBA or BCBA-D), their primary work setting (e.g., private clinic, client’s home, school), and how many BCBAs were employed in their organization. Respondents were also asked to identify what percentage of their work time each week was spent completing activities related to supervision or training of BCBAs, administrative duties (e.g., authorizations, review of data), and director responsibilities (e.g., organizational management). Finally, respondents were asked to indicate how many of the current BCBAs at their organizations came from various recruitment strategies (e.g., job postings at universities, in-house candidates, online advertisements, conference expos/job fairs).
Observation and Proficiency of Hard and Soft Skills
The next section of the survey collected information about respondents’ observations of the demonstration and proficiency of hard and soft skills by the BCBAs in their organization. Respondents first indicated how often their supervisees demonstrated various skills on a 5-point Likert scale (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always). Respondents then rated the extent to which their supervisees demonstrated each skill sufficiently on a 5-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Next, respondents were asked to rate the relative importance of various soft skills. Respondents provided these ratings by dragging and reordering a list containing 12 soft skills as well as a space for them to write in an additional skill (“other”).
Training and Advancement Practices
The final section of the survey asked respondents about training and advancement practices within their organizations. The first question asked respondents whether the BCBAs’ skill(s) in need of improvement tended to be hard skills, soft skills, or whether both were equally in need of improvement. The second question asked respondents about the way their organization responds when a BCBA’s performance needs improvement (if no legal or ethical violations have occurred), such as termination of employment, a probationary period, or training/retraining. Respondents who indicated that their organization provided training or retraining for performance deficits were then asked about their degree of confidence (based on a 5-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) that they have sufficient experience and resources to provide training for hard and soft skills.
The next two questions in this section asked respondents to indicate the types of skills (1) that are most likely to lead to a promotion and (2) are most in need of improvement for the BCBAs at their organization. Respondents were able to select as many (or as few) skills that applied to their organizations. Respondents were also asked to report the types of promotions or additional responsibilities that are available for individuals with good hard and soft skills in their organizations. The final question of the survey asked respondents their opinion on the importance of research on the prevalence and teaching of soft skills to BCBAs and BCBA trainees. Respondents answered this question by indicating their degree of agreement, ranging from “very important” to “not at all important.”
Survey Analysis and Interobserver Agreement
All quantitative data were analyzed in R (R Core Team, 2021) using the “psych” (Revelle, 2021), “pastecs” (Grosjean & Ibanez, 2018), and “readxl” (Wickham & Bryan, 2019) packages. All open-ended data (i.e., written responses) were coded into categories by two data collectors. First, the primary data collector (the first author) reviewed all written responses for each question and developed response categories. For example, after reviewing the written responses for the questions, “What type of promotions or additional responsibilities would you offer to a BCBA with good soft skills,” the primary data collector created the response categories (1) clinical responsibilities; (2) leadership roles; (3) professional development opportunities; and (4) no opportunities based on soft skills alone. The primary data collector also created an “unable to categorize” group for each question if one or more responses could not be coded due to unclear meaning or insufficient information. This group was rarely used across questions.
Next, a secondary data collector reviewed approximately 33% (range: 33%–50%) of written responses for each question and coded the responses using the categories created by the primary data collector. The primary and secondary data collector’s categorized responses were then compared to calculate interobserver agreement (IOA). An agreement was defined as the data collectors coding a response in the same category for that question. Total agreement was calculated for each survey question by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements and multiplying the quotient by 100. Overall interobserver agreement for categorization of written responses was 91.3% (range: 78%–100%).
A second independent data collector also collected data on the identification of spam responses. The first author developed criteria for categorizing surveys as containing spam responses (see below). Thereafter, 64 surveys (32 surveys identified by the first author as containing spam responses and 32 surveys not identified as containing spam responses) were reviewed and categorized by a second data collector using the criteria developed by the first author. An agreement was defined as both observers assigning the same categorization to the survey (i.e., both categorized the survey as a spam response, both categorized the survey as a nonspam response). Total agreement for the identification of spam responses was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements and multiplying the quotient by 100. Interobserver agreement for categorization of spam responses was 98.4%. The single disagreement was a result of the secondary data collector scoring a response as a spam response (based on time stamp and duration of the survey) when the primary data collector did not. The first and second authors reviewed this response; in the end they retained it for analysis because although the duration of the survey response was relatively brief, like other spam responses, the respondent included behavior-analytic terminology (e.g., “BST”) in their written responses that was not included in any survey questions or instructions.
Procedure
A brief description of the survey and the survey link were distributed through the BACB’s email distribution service, several regional professional organizations, and the authors’ personal Facebook accounts. The Facebook posts were initially set as visible to the public to allow for sharing of the survey information by others on the site; however, these posts were subsequently reset to be visible only to the authors’ Facebook friends due to a series of spam submissions immediately following the post (see below). After completing the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to provide their contact information in a separate Qualtrics survey (i.e., a survey tab that was independent of their answers to the main survey questions) to enter a raffle for one of sixteen $40 gift cards.
After data collection concluded, the experimenters reviewed a subgroup of 32 surveys that were flagged as spam submissions for several reasons. First, the submissions all occurred in rapid succession (i.e., submitted within minutes of each other) within a 48-hr period following the public Facebook posts and were completed primarily during the late hours of the night in the United States (i.e., between 12:00 am and 5:00 am). Second, many of the submissions were incomplete or had a completion duration of 3 min or less. Third, many of the submissions contained open-ended responses that were irrelevant to the question or duplicated across questions. For example, in response to the question “Please explain why you agree that the BCBAs you supervise demonstrate sufficient ‘soft’ skills,” one respondent wrote, “Play can train children’s creativity, such as imaginative play with toys.” Finally, the contact information submitted for the raffle with similar time stamps to the survey responses were nearly identical email addresses that varied only by a few numbers and characters at the end of the address. All survey responses and entries for the raffle sharing the characteristics described above were excluded from further analysis and the raffle.
Results
Demographics
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the respondents’ answers to the professional and organizational demographic questions. Not all the 189 analyzed surveys included responses to every question. Thus, the n for each question varies (range: 75–154). Respondents were BCBAs (n = 122, 79.2%) and BCBA-Ds (n = 29, 18.8%). Respondents indicated that they worked in private clinics (n = 64, 42.4%), client homes (n = 49, 32.5%), schools (n = 38, 25.2%), community settings (n = 20, 13.2%), university-based programs or clinics (n = 19, 12.6%) and hospitals (n = 5, 3.3%). Of the nine respondents who reported they worked in “other” workplace settings, five indicated they worked in residential/long-term care facilities (55.6%), two worked in academic/university positions not directly affiliated with a clinic (22.2%), one worked in a nonprofit organization (11.1%), and one worked in a remote (telehealth) role (11.1%). Within these settings, respondents reported allocating their working hours to multiple responsibilities including the supervision and training of BCBAs, administrative duties, director responsibilities, direct services, supervision of direct staff (e.g., registered behavior technicians), consultation, and academic activities (e.g., research, writing, teaching). Few respondents (n = 8, 5.3%) reported allocating more than 90% of their work each week to a singular task.
Table 1.
Respondents’ credentials and workplace demographics
| Survey Question and Response Options | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Which of these credentials do you currently possess? | ||
| BCBA | 154 | 79.2 |
| BCBA-D | 18.8 | |
| What is the primary work setting for your organization?* | ||
| Private clinic | 151 | 42.4 |
| Client’s home | 32.5 | |
| School | 25.2 | |
| Community | 13.2 | |
| University-based clinic | 12.6 | |
| Other | 9.3 | |
| Hospital | 3.3 | |
| How many BCBAs are employed in your organization? | ||
| 1–5 | 152 | 46.7 |
| 6–10 | 17.1 | |
| 11–15 | 9.9 | |
| 16-20 | 8.6 | |
| More than 20 (Range = 27–300+) | 17.8 | |
*Opportunity to select multiple response options
Table 2.
Respondents’ job task allocation and workplace recruitment strategies
| Survey Question and Response Options | n | 0%–25% | 25%–50% | 50%–75% | 75%–90% | 90%–% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In general, what percentage of your time each week is spent engaging in the following activities? | |||||||
| Supervision or training of BCBAs | 151 | 51.7 | 27.8 | 14.6 | 4.0 | 2.0 | |
| Administrative duties (e.g., authorizations, review of data) | 28.9 | 46.3 | 20.8 | 3.4 | 0.7 | ||
| Director responsibilities (e.g., organizational management) | 43.0 | 32.4 | 18.3 | 4.2 | 2.1 | ||
| Other | 34.2 | 42.1 | 13.2 | 7.9 | 2.6 | ||
| All | > Half | 50% | < Half | Few | None | ||
| To the best of your knowledge, how many of the current BCBAs at your organization came from these recruitment strategies? | |||||||
| Job postings at local universities/university job fairs | 144 | 4.5 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 12.0 | 22.6 | 55.6 |
| In-house candidates completing supervised fieldwork | 23.6 | 13.9 | 14.6 | 12.5 | 17.4 | 18.1 | |
| Online advertisements (e.g., Glassdoor, social media) | 17.4 | 10.1 | 7.2 | 12.3 | 20.3 | 32.6 | |
| Conference expos/job fairs | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 7.0 | 22.7 | 68.8 | |
| Other | 6.3 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 11.1 | 68.3 | |
Respondents reported working for organizations of varying workforce size. Approximately 64% of respondents (n = 97) reported that their organization employed 10 or fewer BCBAs. Another 18% (n = 27) of respondents indicated that their organizations employed more than 20 BCBAs. These respondents also had the option to specify the number of BCBAs in their organization. Some respondents reported working in organizations with more than 300 BCBAs (i.e., large agencies with multiple clinic locations). Across organizational settings, 82% of respondents indicated that at least a few (ranging to all) of the current BCBAs in their organization were recruited internally. In addition, approximately 68%, 45%, and 31% of respondents reported the recruitment of current BCBAs using online advertisements, job postings at local universities, and conference expos, respectively. An additional 15 respondents indicated that “word of mouth” recruitment was a primary strategy for their organizations.
Observation and Proficiency of Hard and Soft Skills
Table 3 summarizes respondents’ answers regarding how often the BCBAs they supervise demonstrate hard and soft skills. Approximately 75% of respondents (n = 113) indicated that their supervisees often or always demonstrate sufficient hard skills. About 81% and 78% of respondents indicated that their supervisees often or always demonstrate the soft skills of building and maintaining positive relationships and interactions and professional communication skills, respectively. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported that their supervisees often or always demonstrate the soft skills of giving and accepting feedback well and approaching conversations with empathy and compassion. Less than 70% of respondents (range: 38%–69%) indicated that their supervisees often or always demonstrate the soft skills of effectively prioritize activities, solution-based problem identification, time management/respecting people’s time, balancing results- and relationship-driven behavior, flexibility, independent problem solving, effective collaboration within teams, and attention to detail. Approximately 38% and 46% of respondents indicated that the least common soft skills for their supervisees to demonstrate often or always were solution-based problem identification and independent problem solving, respectively. Further, approximately 59% and 54% of respondents indicated that their supervisees only sometimes or rarely demonstrate solution-based problem identification and independent problem solving, respectively.
Table 3.
Note: This data is mandatory. Please provide
| Survey Question and Response Options | Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Often | Always |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate how often your BCBA supervisees exhibit each of the following “hard” and “soft” skills. | |||||
| Building and maintaining positive relationships/interactions | 0.0 | 1.8 | 16.8 | 54.0 | 27.4 |
| Professional communication skills | 0.0 | 0.9 | 21.2 | 55.8 | 22.1 |
| Hard skills | 0.9 | 2.8 | 21.3 | 57.4 | 17.6 |
| Gives and accepts feedback well | 0.0 | 4.5 | 22.3 | 51.8 | 21.4 |
| Approaching conversations with empathy and compassion | 0.9 | 3.5 | 23.0 | 50.4 | 22.1 |
| Effective collaboration within teams | 0.0 | 4.5 | 26.8 | 47.3 | 21.4 |
| Time management/respecting people’s time | 0.0 | 5.4 | 27.7 | 52.7 | 14.3 |
| Flexibility | 0.9 | 4.5 | 32.1 | 38.4 | 24.1 |
| Attention to detail | 1.8 | 1.8 | 36.9 | 43.2 | 16.2 |
| Effectively prioritizes activities | 0.0 | 5.3 | 36.3 | 51.3 | 7.1 |
| Balancing results- and relationship-driven behavior | 0.9 | 7.1 | 35.4 | 42.5 | 14.2 |
| Independent problem-solving skills | 0.0 | 8.0 | 46.0 | 36.3 | 9.7 |
| Solution-based problem identification | 2.7 | 20.4 | 38.9 | 30.1 | 8.0 |
| Strongly Disagree | Somewhat Disagree | Neither Agree nor Disagree | Somewhat Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| Please rate the following statements: The BCBAs you supervise demonstrate sufficient | |||||
| “Hard” skills | 0.0 | 6.3 | 10.7 | 50.0 | 33.0 |
| “Soft” skills | 2.7 | 12.5 | 11.6 | 52.7 | 20.5 |
n = 105–113. All values represent percentages
Overall, 83% of respondents (n = 112) either strongly or somewhat agreed that their supervisees demonstrate sufficient hard skills whereas only about 6% somewhat disagreed. In comparison, approximately 73% of respondents either strongly or somewhat agreed that their supervisees demonstrate sufficient soft skills whereas about 15% either strongly or somewhat disagreed. When asked to explain why respondents (n = 56) agreed that their supervisees demonstrated sufficient hard skills, they indicated that their supervisees either (1) currently demonstrate sufficient hard skills and have adequate previous training (n = 50, 89.3%); or (2) are displaying sufficient progress in improving their hard skills (n = 5, 8.9%). When reporting why they disagreed that their supervisees demonstrated sufficient hard skills, all respondents (n = 7, 100%) explained that their supervisees’ previous training (coursework and supervised fieldwork experiences) was insufficient. Respondents (n = 47, 100%) who agreed that their supervisees demonstrate sufficient soft skills indicated that their supervisees have either received training on these skills previously, are currently displaying these skills, or were currently making adequate progress in learning these skills. Respondents (n = 13) who disagreed that their supervisees demonstrate sufficient soft skills reported that either they have observed their supervisees performing one or more soft skills incorrectly (n = 5, 35.8%) or that these skills are difficult to train (n = 8, 57.1%).
Table 4 summarizes respondents’ (n = 107) ratings of relative importance of various soft skills. Respondents indicated that the relative most important soft skill was building and maintaining positive relationships and interactions (M = 4.16, Mode = 1). The remaining rank order from second to fifth according to mean scores was giving and accepting feedback well (M = 4.57, Mode = 3 and 5), effectively prioritizing activities (M = 5.37, Mode = 4), professional communication skills (M = 5.42, Mode = 1, 2, and 5), and approaching conversations with empathy and compassion (M = 6.08, Mode = 8), respectively. In contrast, the remaining rank order from second to fifth according to mode scores were professional communication skills (M = 5.42, Mode = 1, 2, and 5), solution-based problem identification (M = 6.22, Mode = 2), giving and accepting feedback well (M = 4.57, Mode = 3 and 5), and effectively prioritizing activities (M = 5.37, Mode = 4), respectively. Thus, depending on whether mean or mode was used to determine rank order of importance, the rankings for solution-based problem identification and approaching conversations with empathy and compassion differed substantially. Only one respondent nominated an “other” skill (effective analytic skills) and provided their ranking.
Table 4.
Respondents’ average ranking of the importance of various soft skills
| Skill | Mean | Mode | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building and Maintaining Positive Relationships/Interactions | 4.16 | 1 | 1–11 |
| Gives and Accepts Feedback Well | 4.57 | 3, 5 | 1–12 |
| Effectively Prioritize Activities | 5.37 | 4 | 1–12 |
| Professional Communication Skills | 5.42 | 1, 2, 5 | 1–12 |
| Approaching Conversations with Empathy and Compassion | 6.08 | 8 | 1–12 |
| Solution-Based Problem Identification | 6.22 | 2 | 1–12 |
| Time Management/Respecting People's Time | 7.23 | 10 | 1–12 |
| Flexibility | 7.23 | 7 | 1–12 |
| Balancing Results- and Relationship-Driven Behavior | 7.27 | 10 | 1–12 |
| Independent Problem Solving Skills | 7.39 | 10 | 1–12 |
| Effective Collaboration within Teams | 7.83 | 11 | 1–12 |
| Attention to Detail | 9.32 | 12 | 1–12 |
n = 198. Respondents were asked to rank soft skills from 1 (most important) to 12 (least important)
Training and Advancement Practices
Table 5 summarizes respondents’ answers regarding whether hard or soft skills deficits were more common for their BCBAs and how their organization responds when performance needs improvement. Overall, approximately 45% of respondents (n = 96) indicated that deficits in soft skills were more common for the BCBAs in their organization. Nearly 44% of respondents indicated that deficits in hard and soft skills were equally common, whereas approximately 12% of respondents indicated that deficits in hard skills were more common. When responding to performance deficits, nearly 80% of respondents (n = 121) reported that their organization provided training or retraining, 8.3% of organizations implemented a probationary period, and 3.3% terminated the individual’s employment. Some respondents (n = 11) also indicated their organizations address performance deficits via additional measures, such as mentorship and learning plans (n = 7, 63.6%) and performance meetings (n = 4, 36.4%).
Table 5.
Tendencies for Inadequate skill performance, organizational response, and importance of soft-skills research
| Survey Question and Response Options | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| In general, when a BCBA’s performance is in need of improvement, is the skill typically a “hard” or “soft” skill? | ||
| “Hard” skill deficits are more common | 96 | 11.5 |
| “Hard” and “soft” skill deficits are equally common | 43.8 | |
| “Soft” skill deficits are more common | 44.8 | |
| In general, how does your organization respond when a BCBA’s performance is in need of improvement?* | ||
| Termination of employment | 121 | 3.3 |
| Probationary period | 8.3 | |
| Training or retraining | 79.3 | |
| Other | 9.1 | |
*Opportunity to select multiple response options
For respondents who indicated that their organization provided training or retraining for performance deficits, 97% of respondents (n = 89) indicated that they strongly or somewhat agreed that they have sufficient experience and resources to teach hard skills. When asked why respondents (n = 66) agreed or disagreed on this point, approximately 77% (n = 51) reported that they had access to a sufficient pool of literature, continuing education (CE) events, workshops, and other training resources to competently teach hard skills. Approximately 61% (n = 40) of respondents also referenced their own previous experience or training as being sufficient. The resources that respondents (n = 80, 89.7%) reported using to teach hard skills in need of improvement included (1) behavioral skills training (BST); components of BST, or other similar training modalities (n = 64, 80%); (2) mentorship programs or performance meetings (n = 13, 16.3%); and (3) referrals to workshops, CE events, and relevant readings (n = 17, 21.3%).
When asked whether they had sufficient experience and resources to teach soft skills, approximately 91% of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed. When asked why respondents (n = 62) felt they had sufficient experience to teach soft skills, approximately 89% (n = 55) reported that their previous experiences, trainings, colleagues, and available resources were sufficient in preparing them to teach soft skills. Nearly 31% (n = 19) of respondents also reported that they (or their organizations) have prioritized the training of soft skills and have developed curricula and other resources for this purpose. An additional 15% (n = 9) of respondents indicated that they utilize resources from other professions (e.g., counseling and psychology) for teaching soft skills. To teach soft skills, respondents (n = 79) reported using (1) BST; components of BST, or other similar training modalities (n = 64, 81%); (2) mentorship programs or performance meetings (n = 29, 36.7%); and (3) referrals to workshops, CE events, and relevant readings (n = 7, 8.9%). In addition, two respondents (2.5%) reported that they were unsure of a formal training process for soft skills in their organizations.
Table 6 summarizes the percentage of respondents who marked each skill as (1) leading to promotion and (2) in need of improvement in their organization. The skills are listed in rank order of how many respondents indicated each skill would lead to a promotion in their organization. Respondents (n = 73) indicated that the top four skills most likely to lead to a promotion were good hard skills (76.7%), independent problem solving (74.0%), building and maintaining positive relationships and interactions (71.2%), and solution-based problem identification (60.3%). Attention to detail was the skill indicated to be the least likely to lead to a promotion (41.1%). In addition, one respondent (1.4%) wrote in “willingness to take on additional responsibilities” as an “other” skill to consider for promotion. In comparison, the top four skills that respondents (n = 71) reported were in need of improvement were independent problem solving (52.1%), solution-based problem identification (50.7%), balancing results- and relationship-driven behavior (49.3%), and both flexibility and time management/respecting people’s time (45.1%). Effective collaboration within teams was the skill identified as least in need of improvement (26.8%). One respondent (1.4%) wrote in that their organization was specifically targeting skills related to diversity, equity, and inclusion for improvement.
Table 6.
Type of skill leading to promotions and in need of improvement in organizations
| Professional Skills | Skills Leading to Promotion | Skill in Need of Improvement | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | % | Rank | % | |
| Hard Skills | 1 | 76.7 | 7 | 40.8 |
| Independent Problem Solving Skills | 2 | 74.0 | 1 | 52.1 |
| Building and Maintaining Positive Relationships/Interactions | 3 | 71.2 | 10 | 36.6 |
| Solution-Based Problem Identification | 4 | 60.3 | 2 | 50.7 |
| Gives and Accepts Feedback Well | 5 | 57.5 | 10 | 36.6 |
| Balancing Results- and Relationship-Driven Behavior | 5 | 57.5 | 3 | 49.3 |
| Professional Communication Skills | 7 | 54.8 | 9 | 39.4 |
| Effective Collaboration within Teams | 7 | 54.8 | 13 | 26.8 |
| Flexibility | 9 | 46.6 | 4 | 45.1 |
| Time Management/Respecting People's Time | 10 | 45.2 | 4 | 45.1 |
| Approaching Conversations with Empathy and Compassion | 10 | 45.2 | 10 | 36.6 |
| Effectively Prioritizes Activities | 12 | 43.8 | 6 | 43.7 |
| Attention to Detail | 13 | 41.1 | 7 | 40.8 |
| Other* | 14 | 1.4 | 14 | 1.4 |
n = 71–73. These questions instructed respondents to select which of the following hard and soft skills are most likely to lead to a promotion and are most in need of improvement in their organization. Respondents could select all that applied
Table 7 summarizes the types of promotional opportunities that respondents indicated were available for individuals with good hard and soft skills. Overall, respondents (n = 67) indicated that individuals with good hard skills were primarily eligible for both leadership, director, trainer, and research opportunities (n = 44, 65.7%), additional clinical responsibilities (more clients/billable hours, more clinical responsibilities, etc.; n = 35, 52.2%), and opportunities for continued professional development (e.g., paid conference attendance; n = 8, 11.9%). Ten respondents (14.9%) reported that there were not opportunities for promotion or for promotions based on hard skills alone in their organizations. Respondents (n = 69) overwhelmingly indicated that leadership, director, trainer, and research opportunities (n = 52, 75.4%) were available for individuals with good soft skills. Fifteen and eight respondents (21.7%; 8.7%) also reported that additional clinical responsibilities and opportunities for continued professional development were available to individuals with good soft skills, respectively. Similar to reports for hard skills, 10 respondents (10.1%) also indicated that there were not opportunities for promotion or for promotions based on soft skills alone in their organizations.
Table 7.
Promotions Available to individuals with good hard and soft skills
| Survey Question and Response Options | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| What type of promotions or additional responsibilities would you offer to a BCBA with good hard skills? | ||
| Clinical (more clients, more billable hours, tougher clients, etc.) | 67 | 52.2 |
| Leadership/clinical director/training positions/research/etc. | 65.7 | |
| Opportunities for continued professional development (e.g., paid conference attendance) | 11.9 | |
| No opportunity for promotion at organization or not for hard skills alone | 14.9 | |
| What type of promotions or additional responsibilities would you offer to a BCBA with good soft skills? | ||
| Clinical (more clients, more billable hours, tougher clients, etc.) | 69 | 21.7 |
| Leadership/clinical director/training positions/research/etc. | 75.4 | |
| Opportunities for continued professional development (e.g., paid conference attendance) | 8.7 | |
| No opportunity for promotion at organization or not for soft skills alone | 10.1 | |
Opportunity to select multiple response options
Of the 75 respondents who provided their opinion on the importance of research on the prevalence and teaching of soft skills to BCBAs and BCBA trainees, approximately 89% of respondents indicated soft-skills research was very important and 9% indicated that it was somewhat important. One respondent indicated that they did not have an opinion on this statement.
Discussion
The current survey data extend the literature on the identification, prevalence, and importance of various soft skills in the daily work of a BCBA. In particular, the results of this survey provide information on the current strengths and weakness of BCBAs of a subset of soft skills as observed from supervisors across various employment settings. These data replicate and extend the results of Zayac et al.’s (2021) assessment of the qualities and behaviors of exemplary behavior analysts. The authors found that current BCBAs characterized an exemplary behavior analyst as someone who displays a variety of hard and soft skills such as being data driven, analytical, and professional. Given that being “professional” was listed as 1 of the top 10 rated characteristics, identifying the specific soft skills that would lead to someone being perceived as professional is warranted. Our data contribute to this task by identifying specific soft skills that are viewed as important, in need of improvement, and likely to lead to promotion. The results of this survey suggest that supervisors of BCBAs find soft skills equally as important as hard skills and in need of improvement in many cases. In fact, nearly 45% of supervisors reported that deficits in soft skills were more common than deficits in hard skills, and about 44% reported that they were equally as common.
Perhaps one of the clearest patterns was the importance of independent problem solving and solution-based problem identification as skills that are likely to lead to promotion (ranked 2nd and 4th, respectively) while also being the top two skills in need of improvement. Independent problem solving was ranked lower in terms of importance (10th) relative to other soft skills. This may suggest that although independent problem solving is not as necessary of a skill for entry level BCBA positions, it is a skill that appears to be in the greatest need of improvement and one that is likely to lead to promotion. For example, a BCBA talks with a caregiver who is concerned about the quality of services provided by the staff members working with their child. A BCBA who engages in independent problem solving might respond by gathering information and discussing this concern with the caregiver, communicating the concern to their supervisor, and describing a plan for providing feedback and training to the staff members to address the problem. A BCBA who does not engage in independent problem solving might instead communicate the caregiver’s concern to their supervisor and expect the supervisor to provide a solution to solving the problem or become involved in resolving the issue. Although these problem-solving situations may not occur as often as opportunities for other soft skills (thus reducing their relative importance), this skill may be likely to lead to a promotion because of the likelihood that a supervisor will need to be successful in resolving these types of problems for their supervisees who do not have these skills. Thus, BCBAs who are proficient in these problem-solving skills seem well-positioned to differentiate themselves from their peers for promotions.
Many supervisors also indicated that soft skills like effectively prioritizing activities, attention to detail, balancing results- and relationship-driven behavior, and flexibility only rarely or sometimes occurred relative to other hard and soft skills. This may be particularly concerning given that supervisors ranked balancing results- and relationship-driven behavior as one of the most important soft skills for supervisees to demonstrate. Effectively prioritizing activities was also ranked as one of the top four most important soft skills, and this soft skill is also listed in the BACB Supervisor Training Curriculum Outline 2.0 (BACB, 2018). Graduate programs and fieldwork supervisors should consider prioritizing training of these soft skills during fieldwork experience to assist trainees in entering the job market as exceptional candidates.
Strategies for training these skills by graduate programs, fieldwork supervisors, and supervisors of current BCBAs appear to be limited, however. Ninety-one percent of respondents reported that they possess sufficient experience and resources to address deficits in soft skills, which differs from the 18%–42% of respondents in Seller et al. (2019) who reported not knowing how to measure or teach the soft skills of time management, organization, and prioritization. Nearly all respondents in the current survey indicated that they typically utilized their own personal experiences when delivering this training. In addition, 31% reported that their organizations have developed a training protocol to address soft-skill deficits. This suggests that supervisors have encountered enough supervisees with deficits in soft skills that a formal training protocol was warranted. Further, it appears that these protocols are based upon the previous experiences of supervisors within these organizations in the absence of published resources. Organization-specific protocols are also not accessible to external graduate programs and fieldwork supervisors who could target these skills with trainees before they obtain employment. Therefore, the development and dissemination of empirically validated soft-skills training protocols is warranted. One outcome that could arise from these data is the creation of supplemental tools for measuring and teaching various soft skills that educators and supervisors could embed in their current training curricula primarily focused on hard skills (e.g., Dolev et al., 2021; Rohrer et al., 2021).
In comparison, about 97% of respondents indicated they possessed sufficient experience and resources to train supervisees who display deficits in hard skills. These respondents reported having access to a sufficient pool of literature, CE events, workshops, and other training resources to support this. This is likely because the teaching of hard skills is required to prepare BCBA-trainees for certification. For example, Iwata et al. (2000) and Ward-Horner and Sturmey (2012) described procedures using BST (or components of BST) for teaching trainees to conduct functional analyses.
In the current survey, about 79% and 81% of respondents reported utilizing BST (or components of BST) to train their supervisees to engage in hard and soft skills, respectively. This is promising because it suggests that supervisors are frequently incorporating evidence-based training practices into their organizations. In addition, these data indicate that the development of additional training packages comprised of methods like BST to teach soft (and hard) skills is warranted. That is, many supervisors reported implementing BST in their clinical practice, which suggests that BST training packages targeting these skills are comprised of components that are familiar to supervisors, within their clinical repertoire, and have a high degree of social validity.
Taken together, these data suggest that supervisees are not consistently demonstrating several important soft skills, and there are few systematic approaches available to train these skills. However, it would be incorrect to conclude that these concerns relate to all soft skills. For example, respondents reported that their supervisees demonstrate the soft skills of building and maintaining positive relationships and interactions and professional communication at higher relative levels than hard skills. This suggests that graduate programs and fieldwork supervisors are already sufficiently targeting these soft skills and may not need to increase training or research on these skills. In addition, the soft skill of approaching conversations with empathy and compassion was ranked as one of the lowest skills in need of improvement (10th out of 13th). In fact, nearly 73% of respondents indicated that their supervisees often or always demonstrate this skill. Given previous surveys on this topic conducted by Taylor et al. (2019) and LeBlanc et al. (2020), these data may seem contrary to their findings. One reason for this could be that these publications, and presentations at professional conferences that have provided guidance on how to provide services with empathy and compassion, have increased training and instruction on this topic. Another reason may be that BCBAs view and evaluate the compassionate skills of other BCBAs differently than do the caregivers in Taylor et al. (2019). A third reason could be that we did not define compassionate skills as specifically as Taylor et al. (2019) and LeBlanc et al. (2020).
For other soft skills ranked lower in importance, such as effective collaboration within teams, it is possible that these skills are not as important for entry-level BCBA positions (similar to independent problem solving) or that there are fewer opportunities (thus a lower level of importance) to display the skill in a given job setting. For example, a BCBA providing in-home services to clients will likely have fewer opportunities to collaborate with a team of other professionals compared to a BCBA working in a school or hospital. Future research should assess the relative importance and opportunities to demonstrate various soft skills across job settings.
The results of this survey offer some initial data to assist instructors and fieldwork supervisors in identifying soft skills to prioritize for training. Graduate training programs could begin by targeting skills that were identified as relatively most important and in need of improvement, such as problem solving and building and maintaining positive relationships. It may be helpful to begin by breaking down relevant soft skills into individual component skills. For example, Rohrer and Weiss (2022) identified 11 subskills that comprise compassionate care skills. All or a portion of subskills could then be measured and targeted through both coursework and fieldwork experiences. For example, course instructors could develop class activities that involve going through a series of problem-solving steps for a scenario related to the class topic. Researchers have also demonstrated the teaching of soft skills with BST (Rohrer & Weiss, 2022). Outcomes of this training could include social validity measures completed by course instructors, fieldwork supervisors, and consumers. In addition, outcomes of training in courses could be directly applied to fieldwork experiences so that trainees have natural opportunities to practice these soft skills with consumers.
Some limitations of the current study should be noted. The extent to which our sample is representative of the population of BCBA supervisors in the field is unclear. This is the case for two reasons. First, we did not collect demographic data on some respondent variables such as age, ethnicity, gender identity, years of experience in the field, and current job title. Second, and related to the first, it is unknown how many BCBAs currently work in a position that includes the supervision of other BCBAs. We are not aware of any statistics from the BACB or other researchers that show the demographic makeup of BCBAs who supervise other BCBAs, which we believe would be a subset of the total number of BCBAs. That is, even within a large organization with dozens of BCBAs, only a proportion of these individuals work in clinical supervisory positions. Future research should investigate this subpopulation of BCBAs to determine how many individuals work in this type of role so that future studies have a representative sample with which to compare their findings.
In addition, the survey included 12 soft skills for respondents to evaluate. There are certainly other important soft skills that could have been included and should be measured in future surveys. For example, we did not include specific options related to cultural responsiveness and humility. We agree with the importance of cultural responsiveness and humility, and refer the interested reader to other reviews, such as Mathur and Rodriguez (2022) and Kirby et al. (2022), who discuss these skills further. A dilemma inherent to any investigation on the relative importance of skills is determining an appropriate number to include in any one survey. For example, Zayac et al. (2021) included 35 characteristics of exemplary behavior analysts in their survey. In one series of questions, the authors divided this list of characteristics into smaller groups for respondents to provide an initial rating of the importance of each skill. In the subsequent question, the authors asked the respondents to select their top 10 characteristics from the full list. Some of the characteristics, therefore, were ranked as having a high level of importance but fell lower on the full ranking. The authors suggested that these outliers in the top 10 rating may have been influenced by participants having to respond to many characteristics at once. We attempted to limit this issue by selecting relatively fewer skills to investigate. In addition, we included an option (“other”) to add in an additional skill on questions asking respondents to rate the soft skills; however, only one respondent wrote in an additional skill (data collection), which was best categorized as a hard skill.
We developed this subset of 12 soft skills through a review of the BACB Supervisor Training Curriculum Outline 2.0 (BACB, 2018) and an informal inquiry with employers of behavior analysts in the United States. These employers included a school, an in-home service provider, and a center providing residential and educational services. We synthesized and narrowed down the list of skills provided by these employers to reflect those they identified as being the most important for their BCBAs to demonstrate. For soft skills that were relatively more ambiguous (balancing results- and relationship-driven behavior, independent problem solving, and solution-based problem identification), we provided an example of the skill. We did not provide an example or definition for all soft skills included in the survey, however, because we did not want to create too narrow or precise of a definition that might have been too restrictive to a specific practice setting or task (e.g., protocol implementation versus writing progress reports). That is, we intended for the listed soft skills to serve as “umbrella terms” for respondents working in a variety of settings to respond to throughout the survey, similar to LeBlanc et al.’s (2020) survey on “the area of compassion, empathy, and building therapeutic relationships with families.” Thus, we believe our list of soft skills was comprehensive enough to obtain meaningful data on the relative importance of these soft skills for BCBAs across a broad number of practice settings.
Soft skills are important to the daily work of BCBAs. Future research is needed to determine efficacious and efficient procedures for training and refining these skills in both current BCBAs and BCBA-trainees. The findings of the current study can be used to guide future research and practice focused on soft-skills training. Researchers and practitioners could prioritize research on skills identified as most important and in greatest need of training (e.g., effectively prioritizing activities, independent problem solving, solution-based problem identification).
Acknowledgements
We thank Maria Clara Cordeiro, Stephanie Hood, Marisa McKee, Jessi Reidy, and Jeffrey Tiger for their helpful comments in the development of the survey used in this study. We thank Brittany Brown for her assistance with data collection.
Funding
This study was funded by a John Schiek Immediate Impact Research Grant.
Data Availability
Deidentified data can be made available upon request. However, data will not be deposited in a repository.
Declarations
Editorial Process
This article has not been previously published and has not been (or will be) submitted elsewhere during the review process.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Dr. Tiffany Kodak is on the editorial board for Behavior Analysis in Practice.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2017). BCBA task list (5th ed.).
- Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2018). Supervision training curriculum outline (2.0).
- Behavior Analyst Certification Board . Ethics code for behavior analysts. 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Behavior Analyst Certification Board . Board certified behavior analyst handbook. 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Dolev D, Naamati-Schneider L, Meirovich A. Making soft skills a part of the curriculum of healthcare studies. In: Firstenberg MS, Stawicki SP, editors. Medical education for the 21stcentury (ch. 13) 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Grosjean, P., & Ibanez, F. (2018). Pastecs: Package for analysis of space-time ecological series. R package version, 1(3), 21 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pastecs. Accessed 15 Sept 2020
- Iwata BA, Wallace MD, Kahng SW, Lindberg JS, Roscoe EM, Conners J, Hanley GP, Thompson RH, Worsdell AS. Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2000;33:181–194. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kirby MS, Spencer TD, Spiker ST. Humble behaviorism redux. Behavior & Social Issues. 2022;31:133–158. doi: 10.1007/s42822-022-00092-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- LeBlanc LA, Taylor BA, Marchese NV. The training experiences of behavior analysts: Compassionate care and therapeutic relationships with caregivers. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2020;13:387–393. doi: 10.1007/s40617-19-00368-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mathur, S. K., & Rodriguez, K. A. (2022). Cultural responsiveness curriculum for behavior analysts: A meaningful step toward social justice. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15(4), 1023-1031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 15 Sept 2020
- Revelle, W. (2021). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. R package version 2.1.9. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych. Accessed 15 Sept 2020
- Richmond J. What Covid-19 taught us about the importance of workplace “soft skills.”. Employee Learning & Development Excellence. 2021;9:34–36. [Google Scholar]
- Rohrer JL, Marshall KB, Suzio C, Weiss MJ. Soft skills: The case for compassionate approaches or how behavior analysis keeps finding its heart. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2021;14:1135–1143. doi: 10.1007/s40617-021-00563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rohrer, J. L., & Weiss, M. J. (2022). Teaching compassion skills to students of behavior analysis: A preliminary investigation. Behavior Analysis in Practice.10.1007/s40617-022-00748-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Sellers TP, Valentino AL, Landon TJ, Aiello S. Board certified behavior analysts’ supervisory practices of trainees: Survey results and recommendations. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019;12:536–546. doi: 10.1007/s40617-019-00367-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taylor BA, LeBlanc LA, Nosik MR. Compassionate care in behavior analytic treatment: Can outcomes be enhanced by attending to relationships with caregivers? Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019;12:654–666. doi: 10.1007/s40617-018-00289-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ward-Horner J, Sturmey P. Component analysis of behavior skills training in functional analysis. Behavioral Interventions. 2012;27:75–92. doi: 10.1002/bin.1339. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wickham, H., & Bryan, J. (2019). Readxl: Read excel files. R package version, 1(3), 1 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readxl. Accessed 15 Sept 2020
- Zayac RM, Van Stratton JE, Ratkos T, Williams M, Geiger A, Paulk A. A preliminary assessment of the qualities and behaviors of exemplary practitioners: Perspectives from U.S.-based behavior analysts. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2021;14:342–351. doi: 10.1007/s40617-020-00522-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Deidentified data can be made available upon request. However, data will not be deposited in a repository.