ABA Inside Track – Episode 322

(SUPERVISION) What Do We Actually Know About Supervision w/ Dr. Natalie Andzik & Dr. Michael Kranak

Original Air Date: September 17, 2025
Host(s): Robert Perry Crews, Diana Perry Cruz, Jackie McDonald
Guests: Dr. Natalie Andzik (Northern Illinois University), Dr. Michael Kranak (Oakland University)

Overview

This episode of ABA Inside Track kicks off another “Supervision September,” with a deep, candid exploration into what science actually tells us about effective supervision in behavior analysis. Hosts Rob, Diana, and Jackie are joined by two leading researchers in supervision, Dr. Natalie Andzik and Dr. Michael Kranak, to review their own recent peer-reviewed studies as well as the broader landscape of research on BACB supervision. The episode pulls back the curtain on what we “know for sure” from the literature versus what’s mostly tradition, best guesses, or “motivational” talks, and explores both shortcomings and new opportunities for supervisors, supervisees, and researchers.

Main Topics, Key Insights, and Structure

1. Supervision September—Setting the Stage

Rob highlights that each September, the podcast exclusively covers supervision in ABA, emphasizing the sheer volume of “thought pieces” versus data-driven supervision research.

• Key Insight: Much of what the field claims to “know” about supervision is based on personal experiences, tradition, and non-empirical writing—not systematic research.

2. Meet the Guests: Passion, Collaboration, & Origins of Their Research (03:47–06:41)

• Natalie and Michael share the story of their professional partnership, which began in 2014 at Ohio State.
• Their collaboration grew from a mutual passion for supervision, inclusion, and supporting the broad constellation of professionals (not just those in formal supervisory contracts).

“It’s not just about when are you a supervisor and when do you have a contract? It’s like how are you talking to other human beings?” – Dr. Natalie Andzik (04:44)

Memorable moment: The playful “Lennon and McCartney” analogy for whose name goes first on publications. (08:16–09:32)

3. What Makes a Good Supervisor—Critical Skills (10:20–14:32)

• (Michael): Receptivity to feedback (from trainees and oneself), flexibility, avoiding rigid power differentials.
• (Natalie): Emphasis on soft skills, professional boundaries, self-awareness, and the complexity of dual relationships.

“If I don’t care about you, I’m not going to give you any feedback and let you keep being a train wreck.” – Dr. Michael Kranak (11:28)

• Transparency, humanity, and managing personal context are essential for robust supervisory relationships.

4. A Look at the Literature: Reviewing the State of Supervision Research (15:28–29:07)

Featured Articles Discussed:

• Scoping Review of Research on and Strategies for Mitigating Burnout among BCBAs (2024)
• The Softer Side of Supervision: Recommendations When Teaching and Evaluating Behavior Analytic Professionalism (2021)
• A Systematic Review of Supervision Research Related to BCBAs (2023)

Key Findings in Research:

• 75% of “supervision” articles are survey- or discussion-based; only a small minority are empirical intervention studies.
• Average survey size is only .03% of all certified BCBAs, raising questions on generalizability.

“Most of what we know is based off of folks’ experiences…50% of all articles published at the time were discussion papers.” – Dr. Michael Kranak (19:05)

• Many intervention studies have tiny samples and limited context, playing into the individualized, variable nature of supervision experiences.
• Student involvement: Their reviews often include their own graduate students as co-authors to foster research skills and move the field forward.

Discussion on Difficulties:

• The personal, context-dependent nature of supervision makes systematic, prescriptive research difficult (e.g., setting, supervisor/supervisee personality).
• Most supervisors aren’t in academic settings or positions to publish research.

5. Why So Little Intervention Research? (22:14–26:51)

• Individual supervision contexts are highly variable, making large-scale, replicable research challenging.
• Incentivizing supervisors in practice to systematically study and publish on their supervision is difficult.

“It has to be single case, single case, single case...” – Dr. Natalie Andzik (24:41)

• There's still a heavy reliance on recommendations and articles lacking empirical support—though the field seems ready to “turn the corner” toward more data-driven research.

6. Shopping for Tools: The Value and Limitations of Takeaway Tools (34:29–39:50)

• Many practical “tools” in the literature (e.g., checklists, forms) are based on authors’ own experiences and lack validation.
• Tools are valuable as starting points for new supervisors, but should be sampled and adapted (“shopped for”) rather than followed prescriptively.

“There’s a really wonderful place for all of these [tools]. But now let’s go see if they help. Let’s go see if they work.” – Dr. Natalie Andzik (29:58)

• Ideal: Integrate these tools as appendices in empirical articles, creating a searchable “supervision toolbox” (dream of a future “supervision journal”).

7. Interventions and Competency: BST, Soft Skills, & Burnout

a. Behavioral Skills Training (BST) for Soft Skills and Burnout Mitigation

• BST (instructions, modeling, rehearsal, feedback) is strongly validated for teaching technical skills and can be creatively adapted for “soft skills” like professional dress, communication, and boundary setting.
• Caveats: BST's “role-play” component may not always be contextually appropriate or socially valid.
• Practical tip: Recording role-plays outside the group can reduce discomfort (e.g., via video).

“The role play piece is kind of weird… but it just has to be done. And then once it’s done, it’s usually not a huge deal.” – Dr. Natalie Andzik (62:14)

b. Burnout: Unique Challenges and Supervisor’s Role

• Burnout is often discussed, but popularly misunderstood—true burnout has specific, empirical criteria.
• Solutions must blend organizational and individual approaches; some root causes are out of a supervisor’s direct control.

“If you’re not supervising them, you’re doing a big discredit to our field.” – Jackie McDonald (74:30)

• Supervisors are ethically responsible for advocating for supervisee well-being;
• Strategies like organizational reinforcement systems (e.g., gift cards, early-release Fridays) can reduce burnout and turnover.

8. What’s Next for Supervision Research? (Dissemination Station) (70:33–76:02)

• Calls for more empirical, intervention-based studies—less talk, more action/data.

“More data, less talk, more action…data shouldn’t be boring.” – Dr. Michael Kranak (71:44)

• Desire for greater collaboration and data sharing among university programs.
• Increase focus on supervisee perspectives and meaningful social validity (not just Likert-scale surveys).
• Broadened definition: Supervision shouldn’t only be for BACB candidates—everyone involved in client care deserves quality oversight.

Memorable advice:

“As much as we can continue to develop these types of tools and think about how we can really best accommodate for our students and their differences and think about how we want to help them become the best BCBAs that they can be, that’s the direction we should be going.” – Diana Perry Cruz (75:22)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “If I don’t care about you, I’m not going to give you any feedback and let you keep being a train wreck.”
  — Dr. Michael Kranak (11:20)
• “It is a relationship. You’re talking every week for hours...keeping those professionalism lines thick.”
  — Dr. Natalie Andzik (11:28)
• “75% of all supervision publications were either discussion-based papers or survey-based papers... 50% of those were discussion papers.”
  — Dr. Michael Kranak (16:53)
• “There’s so much out there, it’s the wild west of supervision. What is all out there? How can we provide this one comprehensive paper...?”
  — Dr. Michael Kranak (41:34)
• “Supervision is what’s going to move the field forward.”
  — Dr. Michael Kranak (73:35)
• “It’s supervision for everyone, not just supervision for the BACB candidates or the RBT candidates. That really grinds my gears.”
  — Jackie McDonald (74:03)

Summary Table: Timestamps of Key Segments

| Timestamp | Topic | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 00:13 | Opening and introductions | | 03:47 | Natalie & Michael: origin story & collaboration | | 10:20 | What makes a good supervisor? Critical skills | | 15:28 | Why a scoping review? The state of supervision research | | 18:47 | What supervision research actually looks like | | 22:14 | Why so few intervention studies? | | 34:29 | Takeaway tools: strengths and weaknesses | | 44:47 | Why focus on burnout and soft skills? | | 47:38 | Burnout—personal story & research implications | | 52:53 | Burnout: organization vs. supervisor responsibility | | 60:36 | BST: Practicalities and awkwardness with soft skills | | 70:33 | Dissemination Station: what’s next for research/practice |

Tone and Style

The episode maintains a candid, collaborative, and at times playful tone, with frequent humor and gentle ribbing among the hosts and guests. The guests are forthright about both the promise and limitations of current supervision research, and repeatedly encourage humility, creativity, and context-sensitivity in both research and practice.

Actionable Takeaways

• The field needs more empirically validated supervision interventions; current literature is dominated by discussion and survey papers.
• Practical tools should be adapted and critically evaluated for context; use them as inspiration, not dogma.
• Supervisors should focus on both hard (technical) and soft (professionalism) skills, and make deliberate efforts to model and teach strategies for burnout prevention.
• BST is broadly effective, but role-play and rehearsal should be adapted to social context and comfort.
• All staff engaged with clients—not only those collecting supervision hours—deserve high-quality supervision, feedback, and professional development.

Final Thoughts

This episode delivers a pointed reminder that supervision in ABA remains as much art as science. The good news? There are abundant opportunities for supervisors, supervisees, and researchers alike to shape the next generation of best—and validated—practices.

Contact Information:

• Dr. Michael Kranak: kranak@oakland.edu | Instagram: cat_lab
• Dr. Natalie Andzik: nnandzik@niu.edu