Supervision Logs, Retroactive Hours, and an AAC Dispute
Lena is an RBT who has accrued 85 fieldwork hours: 60 restricted (direct implementation) and 25 unrestricted. This month she received 4 hours of supervision across 40 direct hours (10%), but 3 of those hours were group supervision with four other RBTs and 1 hour was individual. Her supervisor canceled two individual meetings. Lena asks you, the new BCBA, to sign off on 20 additional unrestricted hours for 'parent training' she did alone by phone. At the same agency, a speech-language pathologist tells the IEP team that a speech-generating device will 'prevent vocal speech' and asks the behavior team to stop teaching mands with the device. The teacher supports removing the device from the classroom. The child has 12 mands on the device and 2 vocal mands.
1. Evaluate supervision compliance and the RBT's request for 20 additional unrestricted hours.
Read the worked answer
Supervision compliance: Four hours across 40 direct hours is 10%, which meets common RBT supervision minimums, but the composition matters. Three of four hours were group supervision; group supervision has limits and does not replace individual direct observation. Two canceled individual meetings mean the required individual component may not have been met. I would reconstruct the supervision log, verify group and individual requirements against current BACB and state rules, and schedule make-up individual supervision.
Unrestricted hours request: Deny 20 hours as presented. Parent-training calls made by an RBT alone are not automatically unrestricted; unrestricted activities must be behavior-analytic, within scope, and supervised. Retroactive approval is not acceptable. I would review the calls: if the RBT was implementing a written parent-training protocol under supervision, some hours might count; if she was giving clinical advice, that is outside RBT scope. Offer supervised parent-coaching opportunities to earn unrestricted hours prospectively.
2. How should you address the SLP's recommendation about the speech-generating device?
Read the worked answer
Do not remove the device unilaterally. The SLP's claim that AAC 'prevents vocal speech' is not supported by the evidence; AAC can support, not inhibit, vocal development. The child has 12 device mands and 2 vocal mands, which suggests the device is functional.
Collaboration steps:
- Request a joint meeting with the SLP, teacher, and parent.
- Share mand data: frequency, contexts, and response effort for device versus vocal.
- Ask the SLP to identify specific evidence or assessment supporting removal.
- Propose a trial: keep the device available while adding vocal mand training; measure both.
- Clarify roles: the behavior team teaches mands; the SLP addresses speech and language; neither removes the other's support without team consensus.
- If disagreement persists, escalate to the IEP team and document.
The goal is a unified plan, not a turf battle. Removing the device could reduce communication and increase problem behavior.
3. What supervision plan would you implement for Lena and for this case?
Read the worked answer
For Lena:
- Weekly one-hour individual supervision plus at least one direct observation per month; group supervision only as a supplement.
- Written supervision contract with goals, unrestricted activities, and a log.
- Behavioral skills training on parent training, data collection, and session structure.
- Assign unrestricted tasks prospectively: graphing, literature summaries, assessment scoring under review, supervised parent-coaching.
- Review hours monthly against BACB requirements; no retroactive sign-off.
For the case:
- Reconcile the behavior plan with the IEP and SLP goals.
- Train the RBT on AAC mand prompting and data collection.
- Monitor treatment integrity and IOA.
- Hold a 30-day team review.
If the agency pressures me to sign inaccurate hours or remove the device: Document and escalate to compliance and ethics. My signature must reflect actual oversight.