RBT practice exam.
Know why you’re right.

1. 0.4/min versus 0.3/min; first is higher
2. 14/min versus 18/min; second is higher
3. 2.5/min versus 3.33/min; second is higher
4. Both rates are equal because requests occurred

Correct answer: 0.4/min versus 0.3/min; first is higher. 14/35 = 0.4 and 18/60 = 0.3 events per minute.

Why not 14/min versus 18/min; second is higher? Counts alone ignore the unequal observation times.

Why not 2.5/min versus 3.33/min; second is higher? These values invert time and count, giving minutes per event.

Why not Both rates are equal because requests occurred? Both observations containing requests does not make the rates equal.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Measuring Behavior.

1. Two marks, one for each event
2. One mark for the interval
3. Two seconds of exact interval duration
4. No mark because behavior was brief

Correct answer: One mark for the interval. At least one occurrence satisfies the supplied rule, so the interval receives one mark.

Why not Two marks, one for each event? The interval is the scoring unit, not each event within it.

Why not Two seconds of exact interval duration? The procedure is not an exact duration record.

Why not No mark because behavior was brief? Brief occurrence still satisfies the stated any-occurrence rule.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Measuring Behavior.

1. 59 seconds
2. 48 seconds
3. 11 seconds
4. 37 seconds

Correct answer: 11 seconds. Latency is the instruction-to-response-onset delay: 11 seconds.

Why not 59 seconds? This combines latency with task duration.

Why not 48 seconds? 48 seconds is the duration of working, not the onset delay.

Why not 37 seconds? Subtracting latency from duration does not represent the requested interval.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Measuring Behavior.

1. Ten responses
2. Six responses
3. Two responses
4. Four responses

Correct answer: Four responses. Only the four assemblies reaching the defined ending condition count.

Why not Ten responses? Adding starts and completions double-counts different events.

Why not Six responses? Started assemblies do not meet the stated completion boundary.

Why not Two responses? Two is the number unfinished, not completed.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Measuring Behavior.

1. The values fluctuate narrowly around 1.0
2. The behavior increases on every day
3. The intervention eliminated the behavior
4. The graph establishes the behavior’s function

Correct answer: The values fluctuate narrowly around 1.0. The points stay between 0.9 and 1.1, with no consistent directional progression.

Why not The behavior increases on every day? Several points are equal or decrease; the sequence is not a daily increase.

Why not The intervention eliminated the behavior? The observed rates are not zero.

Why not The graph establishes the behavior’s function? Rate values alone do not identify behavioral function.

Source: BACB — RBT Test Content Outline, 3rd edition.

1. A worksheet can never be a permanent product
2. The product cannot establish who completed those items
3. The finished sheet proves all responses were independent
4. A larger worksheet removes the attribution problem

Correct answer: The product cannot establish who completed those items. The product no longer distinguishes the learner’s independent work from later additions.

Why not A worksheet can never be a permanent product? A worksheet can be a product; the problem here is attribution.

Why not The finished sheet proves all responses were independent? Completion alone does not identify the person or prompt level responsible.

Why not A larger worksheet removes the attribution problem? More items do not repair uncertain attribution.

Source: BACB — RBT Test Content Outline, 3rd edition.

1. It doubles the rate
2. It leaves the rate unchanged
3. It halves the rate
4. It changes the event count

Correct answer: It halves the rate. 10/25 = 0.4/min; 10/50 = 0.2/min. Doubling time halves the calculated rate.

Why not It doubles the rate? A larger denominator lowers rather than raises the quotient.

Why not It leaves the rate unchanged? Rate depends on time as well as count.

Why not It changes the event count? The arithmetic error changes the reported rate, not the recorded count.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Measuring Behavior.

1. Three demonstrations that the toy increases future responding
2. One selection because repeated choices are duplicates
3. The toy’s behavioral function in each pairing
4. The three selections in their respective trials

Correct answer: The three selections in their respective trials. Record what was selected on each scheduled trial; interpretation follows the assessment process.

Why not Three demonstrations that the toy increases future responding? Preference selections do not by themselves demonstrate a reinforcing effect.

Why not One selection because repeated choices are duplicates? Each observed trial supplies a separate selection record.

Why not The toy’s behavioral function in each pairing? Selection data do not determine a behavior’s function.

Source: SPADS: A Decision-Making Model for Practitioners.

1. The puzzle is a candidate to evaluate as a reinforcer
2. The puzzle is already proven to reinforce every response
3. The puzzle must be used without further supervisor input
4. The selection establishes the function of problem behavior

Correct answer: The puzzle is a candidate to evaluate as a reinforcer. Selection suggests preference and can identify a candidate; a reinforcing effect still requires evidence.

Why not The puzzle is already proven to reinforce every response? Preference alone does not prove a future increase in all responses.

Why not The puzzle must be used without further supervisor input? Assessment results do not authorize an RBT to independently set treatment.

Why not The selection establishes the function of problem behavior? Preference is not a functional assessment of problem behavior.

Source: SPADS: A Decision-Making Model for Practitioners.

1. Leaving the seat is definitely escape-maintained
2. The observed sequence, without claiming a confirmed function
3. The function is attention because another person was nearby
4. The work should be removed earlier in future sessions

Correct answer: The observed sequence, without claiming a confirmed function. Report antecedents, observable responses and consequences; distinguish those observations from functional conclusions.

Why not Leaving the seat is definitely escape-maintained? A descriptive sequence alone does not confirm a maintaining function.

Why not The function is attention because another person was nearby? Another person’s presence is not proof of an attention function.

Why not The work should be removed earlier in future sessions? Changing the consequence schedule is a treatment decision, not a descriptive report.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Repeat the instruction until the learner responds
2. Model the answer and record it as independent
3. Record the no-response outcome using the protocol
4. Provide physical assistance and score the response correct

Correct answer: Record the no-response outcome using the protocol. The probe is intended to measure responding without added help; document its actual outcome.

Why not Repeat the instruction until the learner responds? Repeating the instruction changes the specified probe.

Why not Model the answer and record it as independent? A modeled response would not be independent under the stated condition.

Why not Provide physical assistance and score the response correct? Physical assistance changes the assessment and cannot be scored as independent success.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Omit all consequences and record a standard trial
2. Use an unlisted item and omit the substitution note
3. Repeat the instruction until the preferred item returns
4. Use a listed alternative and document the substitution

Correct answer: Use a listed alternative and document the substitution. The question supplies an authorized backup; implementation and documentation both matter.

Why not Omit all consequences and record a standard trial? This omits the specified backup and falsely implies a standard trial.

Why not Use an unlisted item and omit the substitution note? Both the unlisted item and missing note depart from the procedure.

Why not Repeat the instruction until the preferred item returns? Repeating an already completed trial does not implement the stated backup.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. More opportunity to respond before the prompt
2. More physical effort required for each response
3. A change from correct answers to incorrect answers
4. Removal of all consequences during teaching

Correct answer: More opportunity to respond before the prompt. Delaying the prompt creates an opportunity for an unprompted response before help appears.

Why not More physical effort required for each response? The specified change concerns timing, not response effort.

Why not A change from correct answers to incorrect answers? The goal is not to introduce errors as the target response.

Why not Removal of all consequences during teaching? The prompt schedule does not by itself remove consequences.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Foundational Strategies.

1. Backward chaining
2. Forward chaining
3. Random practice of isolated steps
4. Whole-task independent testing only

Correct answer: Forward chaining. Independent steps expand from the beginning, which describes forward chaining.

Why not Backward chaining? Backward chaining builds independent performance from the final step backward.

Why not Random practice of isolated steps? The steps are taught in a stated ordered sequence, not randomly.

Why not Whole-task independent testing only? Assistance on later steps means this is not an independent whole-task test.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Foundational Strategies.

1. Forward chaining
2. Repeated whole-task testing without teaching
3. Backward chaining
4. Teaching unrelated actions in random order

Correct answer: Backward chaining. Independent performance starts at the final step and expands backward.

Why not Forward chaining? Forward chaining expands independent performance from the first step.

Why not Repeated whole-task testing without teaching? The described sequence explicitly teaches and adds steps.

Why not Teaching unrelated actions in random order? The steps belong to one ordered routine.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Foundational Strategies.

1. The number of minutes since the last token
2. The time of day the session begins
3. A different unpredictable response count each time
4. A fixed count of three correct responses

Correct answer: A fixed count of three correct responses. Each token follows three correct responses: a fixed response-count requirement.

Why not The number of minutes since the last token? The provided rule counts responses, not elapsed time.

Why not The time of day the session begins? Session start time is not the specified contingency.

Why not A different unpredictable response count each time? The required response count stays the same.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Reinforcement-Based Interventions.

1. The required interval has not yet elapsed
2. The response must be incorrect to qualify
3. Three more responses are required by the stated rule
4. The learner must wait until the session ends

Correct answer: The required interval has not yet elapsed. Only 90 of 120 seconds have elapsed, so the temporal requirement is not met.

Why not The response must be incorrect to qualify? The schedule explicitly concerns correct responses.

Why not Three more responses are required by the stated rule? No response-count requirement is stated.

Why not The learner must wait until the session ends? The schedule uses two-minute intervals, not a session-end rule.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Reinforcement-Based Interventions.

1. Whether the learner can imitate a new motor response
2. Whether the request occurs beyond the original materials and setting
3. Whether the original response can be eliminated
4. Whether a different response can replace requesting

Correct answer: Whether the request occurs beyond the original materials and setting. The probe checks transfer of the learned request across conditions.

Why not Whether the learner can imitate a new motor response? The response remains the same; the test changes materials and setting.

Why not Whether the original response can be eliminated? The goal is not to eliminate the request.

Why not Whether a different response can replace requesting? A replacement response is not introduced in the scenario.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Generalization.

1. Was the original recording method invalid?
2. Does a different behavior serve the same function?
3. Does the learned skill persist over time?
4. Can the skill be redefined after the probe?

Correct answer: Does the learned skill persist over time?. A later probe of an acquired skill addresses maintenance over time.

Why not Was the original recording method invalid?? A later probe does not automatically test the validity of the original method.

Why not Does a different behavior serve the same function?? The behavior itself is unchanged, not a replacement-function test.

Why not Can the skill be redefined after the probe?? Redefining the skill would undermine comparison with the original target.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Generalization.

1. Selecting either shape regardless of the instruction
2. Completing a multistep routine in reverse order
3. Responding only to the instructor’s seating position
4. Selecting a response according to the presented instruction

Correct answer: Selecting a response according to the presented instruction. Different instructions signal different correct selections among available stimuli.

Why not Selecting either shape regardless of the instruction? Either-shape responding would not meet the requested-selection contingency.

Why not Completing a multistep routine in reverse order? There is no multistep chain or reverse sequence here.

Why not Responding only to the instructor’s seating position? Seating position is not the stated relevant cue.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Foundational Strategies.

1. It changes the acceptable approximation of one response
2. It teaches the final step of a chain first
3. It reinforces any response without a criterion
4. It records only whether an interval was completed

Correct answer: It changes the acceptable approximation of one response. The criterion changes toward a terminal response form rather than adding steps of a sequence.

Why not It teaches the final step of a chain first? No ordered routine is being assembled backward.

Why not It reinforces any response without a criterion? The scenario explicitly supplies changing response criteria.

Why not It records only whether an interval was completed? Interval recording is a measurement procedure, not the described teaching arrangement.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Working Definitions for Evidence-Based Practices.

1. Deliver the planned outcome only after task abandonment
2. Deliver the planned outcome after the defined help-card response
3. Deliver the planned outcome after any response without distinction
4. Replace the help card with a new response not in the plan

Correct answer: Deliver the planned outcome after the defined help-card response. The contingency is tied to the defined alternative communication response.

Why not Deliver the planned outcome only after task abandonment? Task abandonment is not the specified alternative response.

Why not Deliver the planned outcome after any response without distinction? No distinction between responses would not implement the described differential contingency.

Why not Replace the help card with a new response not in the plan? An RBT should not independently substitute a different target response.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Working Definitions for Evidence-Based Practices.

1. They are both measured during the same observation
2. They both involve movement of the learner’s feet
3. The learner cannot perform both at the same instant as defined
4. The learner prefers one response to the other

Correct answer: The learner cannot perform both at the same instant as defined. At the same instant, the defined seated posture excludes standing on the chair.

Why not They are both measured during the same observation? Shared observation time alone does not establish incompatibility.

Why not They both involve movement of the learner’s feet? Shared body parts alone do not make responses mutually exclusive.

Why not The learner prefers one response to the other? Preference is not the defining feature of incompatible behavior.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Working Definitions for Evidence-Based Practices.

1. Deliver the token because most of the interval was completed
2. Deliver half a token for two minutes without the response
3. Ignore the occurrence and use the original endpoint
4. Restart the three-minute interval without the token

Correct answer: Restart the three-minute interval without the token. The supplied schedule requires a complete response-free interval and explicitly specifies restart.

Why not Deliver the token because most of the interval was completed? Most of the interval does not satisfy the complete-interval criterion.

Why not Deliver half a token for two minutes without the response? A partial token is an invented contingency not specified in the protocol.

Why not Ignore the occurrence and use the original endpoint? Ignoring the occurrence defeats the stated restart rule.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Working Definitions for Evidence-Based Practices.

1. Use established safety procedures and obtain supervisor guidance
2. Try the coworker’s physical procedure and report it later
3. Continue an unaddressed situation until the session ends
4. Write a replacement intervention before contacting anyone

Correct answer: Use established safety procedures and obtain supervisor guidance. Stay within trained safety procedures and promptly seek guidance rather than improvising a physical intervention.

Why not Try the coworker’s physical procedure and report it later? A coworker’s suggestion does not establish training, authorization or safety.

Why not Continue an unaddressed situation until the session ends? Escalation beyond the plan requires timely action, not passive delay.

Why not Write a replacement intervention before contacting anyone? Designing a new intervention is not the RBT’s independent role.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Infer the missing steps from the behavior’s appearance
2. Clarify the procedure with the supervisor before implementing it
3. Use the consequence from an unrelated learner’s plan
4. Choose the consequence that is easiest to deliver

Correct answer: Clarify the procedure with the supervisor before implementing it. A named target without executable steps is insufficient for faithful implementation; obtain clarification.

Why not Infer the missing steps from the behavior’s appearance? Appearance does not supply an authorized contingency.

Why not Use the consequence from an unrelated learner’s plan? Another learner’s individualized procedure cannot fill this gap.

Why not Choose the consequence that is easiest to deliver? Convenience does not establish a safe or appropriate intervention.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. The request is impossible to define
2. The learner no longer needs a behavior plan
3. Actual consequence timing differs across the two responses
4. The observer must stop collecting all data

Correct answer: Actual consequence timing differs across the two responses. The delayed alternative outcome and immediate target outcome are concrete implementation differences worth documenting and reporting.

Why not The request is impossible to define? The scenario supplies no evidence that the request cannot be defined.

Why not The learner no longer needs a behavior plan? The observation does not establish that a plan is unnecessary.

Why not The observer must stop collecting all data? Implementation concerns do not automatically justify abandoning data collection.

Source: Vanderbilt IRIS — Working Definitions for Evidence-Based Practices.

1. “The learner’s function was definitely social.”
2. “The episode proves attention is reinforcing.”
3. “Yelling always means attention is needed.”
4. “The learner yelled; the staff member then spoke.”

Correct answer: “The learner yelled; the staff member then spoke.”. This reports observable behavior and subsequent events without claiming a confirmed function.

Why not “The learner’s function was definitely social.”? The functional certainty remains unsupported.

Why not “The episode proves attention is reinforcing.”? One consequence sequence does not demonstrate a reinforcing function.

Why not “Yelling always means attention is needed.”? The statement generalizes function from response form.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. “Completed four tasks and pushed materials away twice.”
2. “Was somewhat lazy but completed a few things.”
3. “Had an uncooperative attitude throughout the session.”
4. “Refused because the tasks were not motivating.”

Correct answer: “Completed four tasks and pushed materials away twice.”. The revision reports observable actions and quantities, including completed work.

Why not “Was somewhat lazy but completed a few things.”? “Lazy” is a judgment and “a few” loses the recorded count.

Why not “Had an uncooperative attitude throughout the session.”? Attitude is inferred and the statement contradicts completed work.

Why not “Refused because the tasks were not motivating.”? The motivation claim is not established by the supplied record.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Leave the known error because final records cannot be corrected
2. Follow the correction procedure while preserving the audit trail
3. Replace the original with a guessed time and no correction note
4. Ask a coworker to sign as if they observed the session

Correct answer: Follow the correction procedure while preserving the audit trail. Use the established correction process so the corrected information and change history remain transparent.

Why not Leave the known error because final records cannot be corrected? A known error should be addressed through the authorized process.

Why not Replace the original with a guessed time and no correction note? A guess and concealed change do not repair accuracy.

Why not Ask a coworker to sign as if they observed the session? A coworker should not attest to observations they did not make.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. “The learner definitely slept exactly two fewer hours.”
2. “Poor sleep caused all errors during this session.”
3. “Caregiver reported two fewer hours of sleep than usual.”
4. “Sleep information was verified by the learner’s errors.”

Correct answer: “Caregiver reported two fewer hours of sleep than usual.”. Attributing the information identifies its source without asserting direct observation.

Why not “The learner definitely slept exactly two fewer hours.”? This presents secondhand information as directly verified fact.

Why not “Poor sleep caused all errors during this session.”? A causal claim is not established by the report.

Why not “Sleep information was verified by the learner’s errors.”? Session errors do not verify the prior night’s sleep duration.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Record the interruption and the actual completed opportunities
2. Enter the planned number of opportunities as completed
3. Record every missed trial as an incorrect learner response
4. Omit the interruption because it was not a teaching target

Correct answer: Record the interruption and the actual completed opportunities. The actual opportunities and interruption explain the exposure represented by the data.

Why not Enter the planned number of opportunities as completed? Planned opportunities are not completed observations.

Why not Record every missed trial as an incorrect learner response? An unavailable opportunity is not an observed incorrect response.

Why not Omit the interruption because it was not a teaching target? A relevant interruption matters even when it is not the target behavior.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Choose independent because it produces the better score
2. Flag the discrepancy and seek the authorized resolution process
3. Average the two labels and record partially independent
4. Delete both records without reporting the discrepancy

Correct answer: Flag the discrepancy and seek the authorized resolution process. Keep uncertainty visible and use the authorized resolution process instead of inventing certainty.

Why not Choose independent because it produces the better score? A favorable result is not evidence of independence.

Why not Average the two labels and record partially independent? The labels cannot be averaged into a fabricated observation.

Why not Delete both records without reporting the discrepancy? Undocumented deletion conceals rather than resolves the discrepancy.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Enable it because a password makes every service approved
2. Upload first and remove the files if questioned
3. Remove names and assume all other details are harmless
4. Use only the organization’s authorized storage process

Correct answer: Use only the organization’s authorized storage process. Follow the authorized storage process rather than independently creating a new data destination.

Why not Enable it because a password makes every service approved? A password alone does not establish organizational authorization or appropriate protection.

Why not Upload first and remove the files if questioned? Later deletion does not undo an unauthorized disclosure.

Why not Remove names and assume all other details are harmless? Removing names does not guarantee that records cannot identify a client.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Offer a diagnosis but avoid writing it down
2. Write a temporary plan for the family to try
3. Explain the role limit and route the concern to the supervisor
4. Copy a plan from a similar client

Correct answer: Explain the role limit and route the concern to the supervisor. Communicate the concern while staying within implementation and supervision boundaries.

Why not Offer a diagnosis but avoid writing it down? An undocumented diagnosis is still outside independent RBT practice.

Why not Write a temporary plan for the family to try? Calling the plan temporary does not supply authority to design treatment.

Why not Copy a plan from a similar client? A similar client does not justify copying an individualized treatment plan.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Confirm services but omit the diagnosis
2. Confirm services only if the friend promises secrecy
3. Give the schedule instead of confirming treatment
4. Decline to disclose whether that person receives services

Correct answer: Decline to disclose whether that person receives services. Do not confirm or deny a person’s service status to an unauthorized friend.

Why not Confirm services but omit the diagnosis? Service status itself can be confidential, even without a diagnosis.

Why not Confirm services only if the friend promises secrecy? A personal promise does not authorize disclosure.

Why not Give the schedule instead of confirming treatment? A schedule would reveal information about service involvement.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Request training and direction before implementing it
2. Use a short online video instead of supervisor training
3. Try the procedure and ask for feedback afterward
4. Ask the caregiver to decide the procedure’s steps

Correct answer: Request training and direction before implementing it. Seek the needed training and direction before independently carrying out an unfamiliar procedure.

Why not Use a short online video instead of supervisor training? An unrelated video does not establish competence in the assigned individualized procedure.

Why not Try the procedure and ask for feedback afterward? Waiting until after implementation exposes the learner to an untrained procedure.

Why not Ask the caregiver to decide the procedure’s steps? The caregiver’s input does not replace supervisor training and authorization.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Only names can identify a client
2. Identifying context can disclose client information
3. Praise automatically makes the disclosure permissible
4. A private personal account guarantees confidentiality

Correct answer: Identifying context can disclose client information. Details and context can make a client identifiable despite omission of a name.

Why not Only names can identify a client? Names are not the only identifying information.

Why not Praise automatically makes the disclosure permissible? Positive tone does not authorize disclosure.

Why not A private personal account guarantees confidentiality? Account privacy settings are not a substitute for confidentiality requirements.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Continue the early prompt because it produces quick answers
2. Remove all prompts without discussing the change
3. Apply the specified delay and clarify any uncertainty
4. Change the target response to make prompting unnecessary

Correct answer: Apply the specified delay and clarify any uncertainty. Use the feedback to align implementation with the plan and ask questions if needed.

Why not Continue the early prompt because it produces quick answers? Quick responding does not justify departing from the specified procedure.

Why not Remove all prompts without discussing the change? Removing all prompts is a different unapproved change.

Why not Change the target response to make prompting unnecessary? Changing the target exceeds the requested implementation correction.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.

1. Keep the report because no one has complained
2. Wait to correct it until the next annual review
3. Replace the entries silently and delete the prior version
4. Promptly report and correct it through the authorized process

Correct answer: Promptly report and correct it through the authorized process. Disclose the error and follow the approved correction process, preserving an accurate record.

Why not Keep the report because no one has complained? Lack of complaint does not make fabricated data accurate.

Why not Wait to correct it until the next annual review? Known inaccuracies require timely attention, not prolonged delay.

Why not Replace the entries silently and delete the prior version? Concealed changes undermine transparency and the correction trail.

Source: BACB — RBT Ethics Code 2.0.