Supervisory Relationships, Contracts, Expectations, and Feedback
Key Takeaways
- A supervisory relationship should begin with clear written expectations, roles, documentation procedures, and limits.
- Feedback is most useful when it is timely, specific, linked to a goal, and followed by an opportunity to perform again.
- Corrective feedback is not punishment by default; its function depends on its effects and the surrounding contingencies.
- Fieldwork supervision traps include vague expectations, delayed feedback, informal side agreements, and unclear termination conditions.
Building the Supervisory Relationship
A strong supervisory relationship is professional, compassionate, and objective. It does not avoid hard feedback. It makes feedback predictable by defining what will be observed, how performance will be evaluated, how records will be kept, and how concerns will be corrected.
| Contract area | What to clarify |
|---|---|
| Roles | Supervisor, supervisee, client, site, and employer responsibilities |
| Scope | Activities that do and do not count for fieldwork |
| Logistics | Contacts, cancellations, documentation deadlines, and record storage |
| Feedback | How observations, written notes, rehearsal, and remediation will occur |
| Boundaries | Confidentiality, conflicts, dual roles, and ending supervision |
Feedback should name the behavior, connect it to a criterion, and arrange the next response opportunity. For example: during the preference assessment, you offered two items at once on 8 of 10 trials; next session, rehearse one-item presentation until you reach 90% across two role-play sets.
Feedback Trap Checklist
- Vague praise: friendly but not instructional.
- Delayed correction: weak relation to the behavior.
- Only written comments: may miss rehearsal and fluency.
- No criterion: supervisee cannot tell what improvement means.
- No follow-up data: supervisor cannot tell whether feedback worked.
A BCBA agrees to supervise a trainee but says they can work out details as they go. After two months, they disagree about what activities count. What should have occurred first?
During observation, a trainee delivers prompts too quickly and blocks independent responding. Which feedback is best?
A supervisor avoids corrective feedback because the trainee may feel criticized. The trainee continues making the same procedural errors. What is the best interpretation?