What is new—and what our tables currently show
On October 8, 2026, the BACB announced its 2025 BCBA and BCaBA University Pass Rate Reports. The announcement describes first-time examination results and new analyses for prospective students. The official report page provides separate BCBA and BCaBA downloads.
ABA Signal’s BCaBA table now contains 18 entries from the 2025 report, reconciled October 15. Thirteen existing program URLs were retained, five entries were added, and the absent Capilano entry remains available as a labeled 2024 archive. The BCBA table now contains all 204 entries in the 2025 full table, reconciled October 16. We retained 152 existing URLs and created 52 report-entry pages. Forty-three unmatched prior records remain available at their original URLs as labeled historical archives. These counts describe our reconciliation, not program openings or closures. The explanation below addresses two BCBA summary measures; it does not identify winners.
Read the labels before comparing percentages
The BACB explains that the report year concerns first-time examination attempts; candidates may have completed their programs earlier. Its reporting guidance also describes a minimum candidate threshold and circumstances in which years may be combined. It advises against comparing a program’s rate with the overall examination rate because large programs influence that overall figure. Read the BACB’s interpretation guidance and FAQs.
Our practical suggestion: make a separate note for each program you are considering. Copy the certification, program identifier, reporting period, candidate count, percentage and any footnote before writing your interpretation. If two entries do not refer to the same course sequence or reporting period, leave the comparison unresolved until you understand the difference.
A missing row deserves a question, not an invented zero. Likewise, a familiar university name is not enough to establish that an entry represents the exact degree or certificate you plan to take.
Program averages and candidate pass rates answer different questions
The 2025 BCBA report, pages 1–4, gives an overall first-time candidate pass rate of 51%. It separately reports a mean program pass rate of 42.9% for the ten largest training programs. These are different measures with different populations; their difference is not an arithmetic error.
A mean of program percentages gives each program one place in the average, regardless of its candidate count. A candidate-level rate uses people as the denominator. Before comparing two numbers, ask both “What was averaged?” and “Who was included?” A label such as “average pass rate” leaves too much unstated.
Fictional arithmetic example: Program A has 10 candidates and 8 pass, giving 80%. Program B has 90 candidates and 36 pass, giving 40%. The mean of the two program percentages is (80 + 40) ÷ 2 = 60%. Across candidates, 44 of 100 pass, giving 44%. Both calculations are correct for this invented group; they answer different questions. These are not BACB program results.
Do not use a mean of rounded program percentages to reconstruct an official overall rate. You would need the appropriate candidate counts, pass counts and inclusion rules. For a published number, retain the report's label and population instead of substituting your own estimate.
The report also compares mean rates for accredited programs and other reported programs. That descriptive comparison alone does not establish how much accreditation caused the difference, or what would happen to a particular applicant. Use it to develop questions about programs, while keeping causal and personal predictions separate from the reported comparison.
Download a program-evidence worksheet
Download the blank comparison worksheet (CSV). It opens in a spreadsheet and contains one blank entry row. Duplicate that row for each program. No information is submitted to ABA Signal.
Record the exact institution and program, source page and reporting period before the percentage. Keep candidate count and pooled-year notes beside it. The final columns are for current program information and unresolved questions; they are not a formula for a quality score.
- Fill the report fields directly from the source and retain its URL.
- Ask the university for current eligibility, cost, scheduling and fieldwork details relevant to you. Record the date of its answer.
- Leave unanswered fields blank and put the question in the final column. Do not turn an empty field into a negative finding.
- Before sharing the sheet, check each row against its source and remove any personal information you do not intend to share.
This is an editorial note-taking aid, not an official BACB form or a validated decision instrument.
Keep two columns in your shortlist
Use one column for what the exam report documents and a second for questions about your own enrollment. This is an editorial planning method, not a published BACB scoring system.
- Report evidence: Save the specific row and its notes. Label the year clearly. Keep the original source link so you can revisit a transcription or interpretation.
- Enrollment questions: Ask the program about the route you intend to follow, the courses available to you, total cost on a stated basis, scheduling, and responsibility for arranging fieldwork.
Do not fill the second column with assumptions drawn from the first. A percentage does not provide a tuition quote, demonstrate that a required course fits your calendar, or tell you who will arrange supervision. Those questions need their own evidence.
For example, if two programs remain on your list, ask each for a written explanation of the same unresolved issue. Comparing two answers to “What would I still need to arrange outside this program?” can be more useful than repeatedly sorting a table whose figures you already know. Treat this as a suggested question, not a claim about either program.
Before sharing a result or changing your plan
Attach the report year and exact program context whenever you share a percentage. Separate “this is what the report says” from “this is why I prefer this option.” If you notice a change from a prior year, first check whether the identifiers, candidate group and footnotes are comparable; do not supply a causal explanation that the data have not established.
Applicants whose plans cross into 2027 should also review our BCBA transition checklist alongside current official requirements and program advice. Keep that eligibility conversation separate from the historical exam result.
Both university tables now use the 2025 reports. Marked entries pool 2024–2025 candidates. Some repeated names cannot be uniquely linked across years: for example, the 2025 BCBA report has two Nova Southeastern rows with the same institution, department, program and delivery labels but different counts and rates. We keep both source rows separate and do not assign either to a prior course-sequence identifier without additional evidence. Historical pages remain outside the current comparison dataset and sitemap. Ask the university which entry applies to your program before interpreting a change.
Sources and review
Primary sources checked October 11–16, 2026 through automated source-and-render review. This is a release note and editorial reading guide. The announcement and landing page were checked October 11; the BCBA PDF summary and analysis on pages 1–4 were checked October 12 and rechecked October 14. The 18 BCaBA rows were reconciled October 15; all 204 BCBA rows were reconciled October 16 through automated source-and-render review. Uncertain cross-year identities remain separate. No new program rankings, eligibility determinations, or human expert review are claimed.