Did you learn CBT through the tradition of “See one, do one, teach one?” Were your instructors and supervisors clinicians who had never learned the principles of adult learning? Did they instead teach or supervise you in the way they themselves had been taught or supervised?
Dissemination and training of quality CBT therapists has become a recent focus for CBT programs throughout the world. There is a renewed focus in the field of CBT and on the skills needed to effectively teach and supervise. In fact, CBT supervision skills have independently been recognized as a competency in recent years.
Perhaps surprisingly, little research exists on CBT training. What constitutes sufficient training? What does “competence” in CBT actually mean? How should therapist “drift” be monitored and assessed? Sudak et al (2015) summarizes the current research in training and supervision.
Training is defined as the effective transfer of knowledge about and practice of the key skills of CBT. It represents both knowing that and knowing how. Most skills are taught both in training and supervision. Therapists or students first learn the rationale for a skill; they watch experts, and model what they have learned in practice with roleplayed “clients” of varying degrees of difficulty (with corrective and confirming feedback). Once trainees have the necessary skills, they can then be supervised with actual clients in a setting of “real world complexity.”
CBT supervision is most effective and efficient when the supervisor uses processes that parallel CBT therapy. The supervisory alliance is critical to effective work in supervision. The relationship needs to be safe enough for the supervisee to tell the truth and to be able to hear and incorporate constructive feedback. Supervisors should do a needs assessment with supervisees and then collaboratively set goals which form the “road-map” for supervision. Good supervision uses a session structure similar to that employed with clients in psychotherapy (Liese and Beck, 1997). By so doing, the model is reinforced and the supervisee can have an experience akin to self-practice.
Several other important parallels exist between effective supervision and therapy. These include using Socratic questions to stimulate learning and reflection, action plans between sessions and eliciting and giving feedback. Tapes of client sessions must be used to assess progress, rated by both the supervisee and supervisor with a validated instrument to determine fidelity and integrity, such as the Cognitive Therapy Rating Scale and client symptom rating scales provide data to determine if care is adequate and safe.
Supervision also requires conceptualization – both of the client and the supervisee. We are more effective supervisors if we develop a tailored educational plan based on the educational needs of the trainee and his or her capacities as therapist. The cultural competence and the cultural background of supervisees and clients should also be considered as a part of the conceptualization.
Supervisees should be encouraged to use thought records regarding their reactions to clients and expectations of themselves as therapists. This practice helps them to learn more effectively and inculcates the self-reflection that encourages expertise. Bennett-Levy (2003) has published extensively regarding this core process in CBT training. Active engagement and thoughtful implementation of several learning methods, as described by Milne and Dunkerley (2010), heightens curiosity and interest in supervisees.
Making our supervision and training more effective is also more engaging and fun for the teacher, so everyone benefits from this effort to improve our work.
Sudak, D.M., Codd, R.T., Ludgate, J., Reiser, R.J., Milne, D., Sokol, L., Fox, M. Teaching and Supervising Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. (2015) Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Bennett-Levy, J. Lee., N., Travers, K., Pohlman, S., & Hammernick, (2003). Cognitive therapy from the inside: Enhancing therapist’s skills through practicing what we preach. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31, 145–163.
Liese, B.S., & Beck, J. S. (1997). Cognitive therapy supervision. In E. Watkins (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision. New York, NY: Wiley
Milne, D.L., & Dunkerley, C. (2010). Towards evidence-based clinical supervision: The development and evaluation of four CBT guidelines. Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 3, 43–57.
by Aaron T. Beck, MD
Part 3 of 3
I think that it is going to take a number of years for us to really get our Recovery Oriented Cognitive Therapy approach fully implanted. The reason is that the approach is novel, and compared to the standard approach for the severely mentally ill, it is revolutionary. For example, one important principle is that if that you treat these individuals as though they are normal, they are going to react normally. They are going to show normal affect, normal behavior, and normal thinking. Our idea is that not only can we bring out the normal personality, but we can maintain the normal personality throughout the individual’s stay in an inpatient facility and then back out into the community.
One of the problems is that this model runs counter to everything that has been taught before this. For example, when I took psychiatry in medical school, I was taught that there were two types of psychiatric patients. There was dementia praecox, which had to do with people who had delusions and hallucinations, who would gradually just get worse and worse until they were completely insane. Then, there were psychopathic personalities who were individuals with very distorted personalities. In either case, the question was, were these individuals treatable?
And so I was imbued with this story that severely mentally ill people, since they seemed so removed and so strange, were really untreatable. Working with Paul Grant and the others on our schizophrenia team, we were able to discover that if we changed our philosophy to the ideas of Recovery and went on the assumption that underneath the abnormal symptoms, there was a normal personality, that we could maintain the personality.
But the problem was, how do you maintain the person? Well, that becomes the problem. So the plan became to train all the individuals that have contact with the patients–actually we call them “individuals.” This includes the art therapists, the occupational therapists, the social workers, the line staff, nurses and psychiatrists. We needed all of them to come aboard, using this new approach. To do this, they needed a change in attitude, because many of them had the same erroneous belief that I had had—namely that the people who were insane by definition, were not capable of being sane at any time. And we would have to create an atmosphere in which all of the personnel would work toward establishing a cognitive milieu.
Now, to accomplish that would be difficult, because there are numerous problems that the staff has to deal with, that get in the way of this full recovery. For example, the most common problems are the negative symptoms. Some of the severely ill individuals also act out in various ways or become aggressive toward the staff. So numerous problems have come up, and the staff has had to learn how to deal with them. But once they do, the individual can move along and get back into their lives. Also, there is certainly turn-over at the various facilities, as staff comes in and out.
So, I expect that at the end of 5 years, we’re going to have a model program here at the Philadelphia Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual Disability Services(DBHIDS), and people will come from all over the world to learn about the program. Right now, we have national and international clinicians who are trying to learn our method and export it to their own home towns, and eventually we’ll have a training program that will involve not only people at DBHIDS but people from around the world.
Aaron T. Beck, MD
Part 2 of 3 (Read part 1, A Biography of Cognitive Behavior Therapy)
At some point, Cognitive Therapy morphed into what was then called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and continued to be quite popular. It turned out to be widespread, and people came to us from all over the world for training. However, I had a nagging feeling that we were mostly training therapists who would be seeing individuals in private practice. That meant that people with a higher social economic status tended to receive Cognitive Therapy, but there was a huge population of other individuals, being treated within the community, who did not receive Cognitive Therapy or any of the other evidence based treatments. So the question become, how do we get to treat patients in a community setting? I had no contacts within the community in Philadelphia. And then by a stroke of fortune, I heard that there was a new director of the Philadelphia Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual Disabilities Services (DBHIDS). Arthur Evans, Ph.D. was coming from Yale University. I could see right off there would be a meeting of the minds. I was looking for a community in which to disseminate Cognitive Therapy and he was looking for an evidence based treatment to disseminate in DBHIDS. Thus, we started a partnership in 2007.
And so we continued on and it was quite successful. Dr. Torrey Creed joined my team and headed up the work, developing implementation strategies to bring CBT to diverse real-world settings. Again, there was a great deal of adaptation, but this time it was to find ways to fit CBT to the challenges of community mental health. We published a paper in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology describing the first 7 years of our work, showing that we are able to bring high-quality CBT to the previously missed community populations, even in non-traditional treatment settings with complex patients. In fact, the clinicians were able to deliver CBT with as much competency as therapists in the earlier clinical trials!
Then around 2011, Arthur Evans told me that there was a panel at the American Psychological Association on the Recovery movement, and he asked if I would give a lecture on Recovery. Well, that puzzled me. I asked, “What is Recovery? Well, Recovery has to do with setting up certain objectives for the individuals rather than simply focusing on relief of symptoms. It was ascertaining from the individuals what their major goals in life were—e.g., to be independent, to have connections with other people, to be involved productively, to have a restoration of dignity and to have purpose. I thought, wow – that all sounds ideal. So I asked Arthur, “How do you go about doing this? They are wonderful objectives, but how do you go from A to Z? For example, a patient who is huddled in a corner and talking to himself all day, how do you get him out, to living independently, getting a job, making connections with other people?” And he said, “Well, that’s going to be the topic of your speech!”
So I did a lot of head work. I talked with Dr. Paul Grant, and we came up with a new way in which we are able to use the same principles of Cognitive Therapy that we use with depression and anxiety. The same principles could be utilized within a Recovery framework, working with severely mentally ill individuals – but it differed in many respects from the standard Cognitive Therapy techniques. For example, there is less emphasis on dialogue and much more on forming a solid relationship with the individual – some call it engagement – and then setting goals with the individuals, and following this up with a number of experiential and behavioral experiences or assignments, which would advance the individual from being huddled in a corner, to becoming more engaged with the therapist and with the therapeutic community (which was very important), and then moving on to less restrictive levels of care, and then finally, finding their place in the community.
And so we started off at the Episcopal Hospital and then moved on to Girard Hospital, and from there, we went to various other settings. Eventually, we were able to go to facilities that were serving the severely mentally ill individuals.
You (the therapist) need to use all the basic Rogerian counseling skills. In other words, you need to be a nice human being in the room with the client and treat every client the way you’d like to be treated. And of course, therapists need to work on their own negative reactions to clients.
- – Judith S, Beck, PhD
by Aaron T. Beck
Part 1 of 3
I thought I would begin today with a little bit of the history, but as Emerson once said, “There is no such thing as history, only biography.” So I am going to give you my biography and we will see how it wraps up into history.
Many years ago, I wanted to test out an intervention that I had developed called Cognitive Therapy, and so I set up a clinic that was called The Mood Clinic. The clinic served many purposes. It was simultaneously a research clinic, a training clinic, and a service clinic. We first dealt with depression, and I wanted to see if what we had developed as the intervention for depression was a valid one. In those days, as well as today, in order to prove the validity of any type of intervention, you would have to have a clinical trial with a control group and an intervention group. The control group received 12 weeks of Imipramine. The intervention group received 12 sessions of cognitive therapy. This randomized controlled trial showed that cognitive therapy treatment was more effective than Imipramine. This was the first study that showed that a psychosocial intervention worked with depressed people, and that cognitive therapy worked at least as well as pharmacological therapy.
Indeed, when we continued to follow the patients during the follow up period, we found that patients who had received 12 weeks of Imipramine tended to not do well in the follow up period, but those using our psychosocial intervention continued to do well. The explanation was that the Cognitive Therapy intervention had actually taught people new skills. The pharmacotherapy people could no longer progress without receiving more drugs.
In subsequent clinical trials, people were kept on the drugs longer; however, the period for the psychotherapy was reduced! To make a long story not quite as long, we fine-tuned the treatment and wrote a book describing the treatment. Then we turned our attention to anxiety disorders. From then on, we continued with the same paradigm. We would make clinical observations of patients with a different disorder, develop a cognitive formulation of the disorder, and adapt our interventions. We would then do a clinical trial to demonstrate that it was valid. And we would publish a book. And so we went on from depression to suicide, substance use, anxiety, and personality disorders. We found that our clinical trials were quite effective, and we wrote a number of books on a number of other disorders too. This took us about forty or fifty years. When you have a new therapy, you have to start when you are very young, or you are not going to live to see the ultimate applications!
Read part 2: The Evolution of CBT in Community Mental Health
The hallmark of cognitive therapy is understanding clients’
reactions—emotional and behavioral—in terms of
how they interpret situations.
– Judith S. Beck
“Clients should always be positively reinforced for expressing their doubts and concerns about therapy or the therapist. ”
Judith S. Beck
“Every minute in a session is precious, and we want to maximize the time we have to help clients learn to deal with the issues that are most important to them.”
Dr. Judith Beck
Beck Institute for Cognitive Behavior Therapy is a leading international source for training, therapy, and resources in CBT.
Soldiers Suicide Prevention (Beck Institute) is a Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) Approved Charity: CFC # 11590
Site developed by LevLane