ABA Session Notes Examples and a Copyable Template

Most searches for ABA session notes examples are really searches for one thing: what does a finished note look like, line by line, for the code I am billing? This post gives you the literal text. Below are a copyable template, three complete de-identified example notes (for 97153, 97155 and 97156), a weak-versus-strong rewrite, and a pre-signature checklist.

Every learner, caregiver and staff name below is fictional, and every number is invented for illustration. None of it describes a real person. For the reasoning behind what a note must establish, and the SOAP versus DAP debate, read how to write ABA session notes; this post is the worked-examples companion to it.

What every ABA session note needs, in one list

Whatever format you use, a reader who has never met the learner should be able to find these in under a minute:

• Rendering provider name and credential, learner identifier, date, actual start and end time, and place of service.
• The service delivered, described so it matches the code billed.
• What was run, with the data: programs, targets, trials or opportunities, and results.
• Behavior and what was done about it: antecedent, behavior, consequence, and the response plan used.
• Clinical interpretation: is this target progressing, stalled or regressing, and against what baseline.
• The plan: what happens next session, and any change requested.
• Signature and date, plus any co-signature your payer or state requires.

A copyable ABA session note template (SOAP)

Searchers who type "soap note aba" want this: SOAP adapted so caregiver report stays separate from measured data. Copy it into whatever system you use and delete the guidance in parentheses.

Field	What to write
Header	Learner ID; DOS; start and end time (actual); place of service; rendering provider and credential; service code (97153 / 97155 / 97156 / other); others present
S: Subjective	What the caregiver or learner reported and anything that may affect today (sleep, illness, medication change, schedule disruption). Attribute it: "Mother reported..." This is report, not data.
O: Objective	Programs run, targets, trials or opportunities, percent independent or count, prompt level, and any behavior data (frequency, duration, intensity). Numbers go here and nowhere else.
A: Assessment	Your interpretation against baseline or the last two sessions. Why this service is still needed today. Name the barrier, not just the score.
P: Plan	What continues, what changes, what you will review with the supervising BCBA, and anything the caregiver is to practice.
Attestation	Typed or drawn signature, credential, date and time signed; supervisor co-signature if required.

The one rule that makes a template work: if a sentence contains a number, it belongs in O; if it contains the word "because" or "suggests", it belongs in A.

Example 1: a 97153 technician note

CPT 97153 describes adaptive behavior treatment by protocol, delivered by a technician under the direction of a qualified professional, face-to-face with one patient, in 15-minute increments. The CPT code descriptors are owned by the American Medical Association; check the current code book and your payer's policy for exact wording and for how minutes convert to units.

Header. Learner: "Milo" (fictional), age 5. DOS 10/6. 9:02 to 11:58. Place of service: home. Rendering: Dana Okafor (fictional), RBT. Code 97153. Caregiver (mother) present for the first 10 minutes.

S. Mother reported Milo slept about six hours and had a runny nose this morning; she said he ate a full breakfast. No medication changes reported.

O. Mand program (picture exchange, 3 targets): 15 opportunities, 9 independent, 4 with a gestural prompt, 2 with a physical prompt. Previous session: 7 of 15 independent. Imitation program (motor, 2 targets): 10 trials, 8 independent. Toileting schedule: 5 timed trips, 3 successes in the toilet, 2 dry at check. Aggression (hitting): 2 instances, both during transition from tablet to table; each lasted under 10 seconds. Antecedent: tablet removal with a 10-second warning. Consequence: blocked, prompted "all done," offered first-then board; compliance with the next demand within 30 seconds both times.

A. Independent mands rose from 47 percent to 60 percent over two sessions, while physical prompts fell from 3 to 2. Skill acquisition is progressing, but Milo still needs prompting on novel pictures, which is why direct one-to-one treatment remains necessary. Transition-related aggression is occurring at a lower rate than last week (two instances versus the five recorded in the prior session) but remains tied to removal of preferred items.

P. Continue mand targets and add a fourth picture next session if independence holds at 70 percent. Keep the 10-second warning plus first-then board at transitions and report any hitting during transitions to the supervising BCBA at Thursday's review. Mother to practice the first-then board at snack time.

Attestation. Signed Dana Okafor, RBT, 10/6 12:14.

Example 2: a 97155 protocol modification note

97155 is the code for adaptive behavior treatment with protocol modification, delivered by the qualified professional, which may include simultaneous direction of the technician, face-to-face with the patient. The note must show that a protocol was actually modified or that the technician was directed live. "Observed session" alone does not carry it.

Header. Learner: "Priya" (fictional), age 8. DOS 10/8. 3:30 to 4:30. School clinic room. Rendering: Marcus Lindqvist (fictional), BCBA. Technician in session: Dana Okafor, RBT. Code 97155. Direct observation of RBT for the month: yes.

S. RBT reported that Priya has refused the two-step receptive directions program for three consecutive sessions, crying and moving away from the table.

O. Observed the first 20 minutes of programming. In the two-step directions program, baseline accuracy over the last three sessions was 20, 10 and 20 percent with escalating avoidance. Changed the protocol during the session: reduced the first-step demand to one step with a model prompt, delivered reinforcement after every correct response instead of every third, and moved the program from the table to the floor, where Priya sits during preferred play. Modeled the revised procedure for the RBT in 2 trials, then watched the RBT run 10 trials: 7 independent, 3 with a model prompt, no avoidance behavior. Gave the RBT feedback on delivering the prompt within two seconds of the instruction (four of ten were late; corrected on the final four trials).

A. Avoidance appears to be maintained by escape from a demand she cannot yet complete; the revision lowered response effort and increased reinforcement density, and avoidance dropped to zero for the session. This single session is not enough to call the change successful, so the program stays on the review list. The services required a clinician because the change depended on analysis of the function and a live revision of the protocol.

P. Update the written protocol today and send it to the RBT. Run the revised version for the next five sessions and graph accuracy and avoidance together. Return to the original format only if accuracy exceeds 80 percent for two consecutive sessions. Next 97155 observation in two weeks.

Attestation. Signed Marcus Lindqvist, BCBA, 10/8 5:02 PM.

Example 3: a 97156 caregiver guidance note

97156 describes family adaptive behavior treatment guidance, provided by the qualified professional to guardians or caregivers, with or without the patient present. The note has to show who was trained, on what, and how you checked it stuck. Payers differ on whether the learner must be present, on telehealth rules and on how often it may be billed, so confirm before you bill.

Header. Learner: "Theo" (fictional), age 4. DOS 10/13. 6:00 to 6:50 PM. Telehealth via the practice's video platform; learner not present. Rendering: Marcus Lindqvist, BCBA. Present: both parents. Code 97156.

S. Parents reported that bedtime routines now run past 90 minutes on four of seven nights, with Theo leaving the bed repeatedly. They asked what to do when he cries.

O. Reviewed the bedtime plan using behavioral skills training. Instruction: reviewed the visual schedule and the plan for return-to-bed prompts. Modeling: demonstrated the quiet return-to-bed response. Rehearsal: each parent role-played two scenarios (leaves bed; calls out). Father delivered 4 of 5 plan steps correctly in the first rehearsal and 5 of 5 in the second; mother delivered 3 of 5, then 5 of 5. Feedback given after each rehearsal. Parents logged the data sheet from the past week with me: 3 of 7 nights completed within 45 minutes.

A. Both parents can now run the plan with accuracy in rehearsal, and the main barrier is consistency of the first two steps on difficult nights, not understanding. Continued caregiver guidance is needed because the target behavior occurs in the home outside any clinic session.

P. Parents will use the plan for the next seven nights and record bedtime duration. Review the sheet at the next guidance session on 10/20 and adjust the return-to-bed schedule. Email the one-page plan summary today.

Attestation. Signed Marcus Lindqvist, BCBA, 10/13 7:05 PM.

Weak versus strong: the same session, rewritten

This is the difference between a note that describes activity and one that supports medical necessity.

Weak	Strong
"Worked on mands and imitation. Learner did well. Some behaviors."	"Mand program, 15 opportunities, 9 independent (up from 7). Two instances of hitting at tablet removal; blocked and redirected with first-then board; compliant within 30 seconds."
"Parent training completed."	"Trained both parents on the bedtime plan with instruction, modeling, rehearsal and feedback; mother 3 of 5 steps, then 5 of 5."
"Observed RBT."	"Modified the directions program (one step, model prompt, denser reinforcement) and coached prompt timing; 4 of 10 prompts late, corrected."

Common reasons a note fails review

• Copied text. Identical narrative across days or learners signals that nothing was actually recorded. Reviewers look for it. The data and the Assessment paragraph should change as the learner does.
• Times that do not reconcile. Scheduled times in the note instead of actual ones, or a duration that does not support the units billed.
• Wrong code for the narrative. A technician note billed as 97155, or a supervision observation with no protocol change billed as treatment. Your payer sets the rule.
• Caregiver report written as data. "Learner was calm all week" is a report. Put it under S.
• No signature, or the wrong credential. The credential beside the name has to match what was billed.
• Late documentation. Payers and states set time limits, and they vary. Check yours rather than relying on a general rule.

A 60-second check before you sign

1. Do the start and end times add up to the units billed under your payer's rule?
2. Does the narrative describe the service that the code names?
3. Is every number in O, and does A compare it with something?
4. Would a reviewer who reads only A and P understand why this session was needed?
5. Is your credential, signature and signing time on it?

Where to go next

Your data is what feeds the Objective section, so the better your collection, the faster the note: see ABA data collection sheets for ready-to-use layouts, and ABA data collection software if you want that data to flow straight into the note. If you have to produce supervision records alongside notes, the RBT supervision log template covers that side.

If you are looking at software, our ABA session notes software page describes how Wilma handles notes: structured fields tied to the session, with AI features on Pro, including a note draft that the clinician reviews and signs. Whichever tool you use, the clinician owns the content of the note.