Work Sample Guide LEVEL 1
Work Sample Guide LEVEL 1
Work Sample Guide LEVEL 1
The final step in the Beck Institute CBT Certification process is completing and submitting a
Work Sample. The Work Sample consists of two parts: 1. A Case Write-up of a real client and
their conceptualization and treatment (without the client’s full name) and 2. An actual
recording of a live CBT session with this client (without client’s full name). Both parts of the
Work Sample (Case Write-up and Recorded Therapy Session) are to be submitted at the same
time according to the instructions provided. You may not use a client you submitted for
supervision.
Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation: What was the client’s reported identity and
sexual orientation at the time of the Recorded Session?
Cultural Heritage: What did the client say their cultural heritage was?
Religious/Spiritual Orientation: What did the client say their orientation was (if any)?
Living Environment: What kind of structure does the client live in (e.g., apartment, single
house, homeless, etc.)? In what environment do they live (e.g., inner city, farm, suburb)?
Who else lives in their household? What is their relationship to the client?
Employment Status: What kind of work does the client do (e.g., laborer, office worker,
manager, professional)? Is this work paid or unpaid? How long has the client worked at this
job? Is it full-time or part-time? How satisfied is the client with their work? If relevant, state
“takes care of home and family” or, if relevant, “unemployed.”
Socioeconomic Status: What is the client’s socioeconomic status (SES; as defined by the
American Psychological Association: social standing or class measured as a combination
of education, income, and occupation), State “high SES,” “middle SES” or “low SES.”
Major Symptoms: What symptoms did the client have in these four areas:
Emotional:
Cognitive:
Behavioral:
Physiological:
Mental Status: How did the client appear? What was their mental status, including
orientation, memory, and other characteristics that could negatively influence their ability
to fully participate in therapy?
Side Effects: If applicable, what side effects did the client experience?
Concurrent Treatment: If applicable, what other treatment was the client receiving for
his psychiatric or psychological condition?
HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: When did the client’s symptoms first appear, how long have
they persisted, and how severe have they been? What has their impact been on the
client’s functioning?
PERSONAL, SOCIAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND VOCATIONAL HISTORY: What were the client’s
significant positive and negative relationships like with family, friends, teachers, persons in
authority, and peers?
MEDICAL HISTORY AND LIMITATIONS: What medical conditions did the client have? How
severe were they? What limitations, if any, did they impose on the client’s life?
MAINTAINING FACTORS: What helped maintain the client’s symptoms? (Maintaining factors
could include the continuation of internal or external stressors, the way the client
processed information, maladaptive cognitions about and reactions to negative emotion,
dysfunctional thought processes, maladaptive behavior, and/or skill deficits).
VALUES AND ASPIRATIONS (OPTIONAL): What has been most important to your client in life
(values)? What does your client want from life or how do they want their life to be
(aspirations)?
COURSE OF TREATMENT SUMMARY: How did the treatment process unfold? What was the
client’s motivation like? How easy or difficult was it to treat this client and why?
OUTCOME OF TREATMENT: How much change was there in the client’s symptoms, level of
functioning, and/or sense of well-being? What was the clients’ overall level of satisfaction
with the treatment provided?
You are required to complete all items in the Case Write-Up. If you don’t complete a section,
you won’t be able to submit your Case-Write Up. The range of possible total scores will be 0-
50. Items in the Cognitive Conceptualization Diagram, Narrative Summary of
Conceptualization, and Problems Lists/Goals/EBT’s Sections are weighted more heavily than
other sections. These sections require minimum scores of 4 on each item to pass; 12 out of 15
possible points. The remaining sections must total to a minimum score of 28 out of 35
possible points. A total score of 40 is the minimum passing score. The scoring grid is as
follows:
The second part of the Work Sample is the recording of a live therapy session with the client
described in the Case Write-Up. The work sample must be original work completed by the
applicant without assistance. The client recorded must not have been discussed during
supervision. The recorded therapy session should be a standard Cognitive Behavior Therapy
session. It will be rated on the Cognitive Therapy Rating Scale (CTRS). The CTRS has 11 items;
each item is scored on a scale of 0-6. A score of 44 is the minimum passing score. A copy
of the CTRS is included with this Guide.
DIRECTIONS: For each time, assess the therapist on a scale from 0 to 6, and record the rating
on the line next to the item number. Descriptions are provided for even-numbered scale
points. If you believe the therapist falls between two of the descriptors, select the intervening
odd number (1, 3, 5). For example, if the therapist set a very good agenda but did not establish
priorities, assign a rating of a 5 rather than a 4 or 6.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
If the descriptions for a given item occasionally do not seem to apply to the session you are
rating, feel free to disregard them and use the more general scale below:
Please do not leave any item blank. For all items, focus on the skill of the therapist, taking into
account how difficult the patient seems to be.
___1. AGENDA
0 Therapist did not set agenda.
4 Therapist worked with patient to set a mutually satisfactory agenda that included
specific target problems (e.g., anxiety at work, dissatisfaction with marriage.)
6 Therapist worked with patient to set an appropriate agenda with target problems,
suitable for the available time. Established priorities and then followed agenda.
2 Therapist elicited some feedback from the patient, but did not ask enough questions to
be sure the patient understood the therapist’s line of reasoning during the session or to
ascertain whether the patient was satisfied with the session.
4 Therapist asked enough questions to be sure that the patient understood the therapist’s
line of reasoning throughout the session and to determine the patient’s reactions to
the session. The therapist adjusted his/her behavior in response to the feedback, when
appropriate.
6 Therapist was especially adept at eliciting and responding to verbal and non-verbal
feedback throughout the session (e.g., elicited reactions to session, regularly checked
for understanding, helped summarize main points at end of session.
___3. UNDERSTANDING
0 Therapist repeatedly failed to understand what the patient explicitly said and thus
consistently missed the point. Poor empathic skills.
2 Therapist was usually able to reflect or rephrase what the patient explicitly said, but
repeatedly failed to respond to more subtle communication. Limited ability to listen
and empathize.
4 Therapist generally seemed to grasp the patient’s “internal reality” as reflected by both
what the patient explicitly said and what the patient communicated in more subtle
ways. Good ability to listen and empathize.
6 Therapist seemed to understand the patient’s “internal reality” thoroughly and was
adept at communicating this understanding through appropriate verbal and non-verbal
responses to the patient (e.g., the tone of the therapist’s response conveyed a
sympathetic understanding of the client’s “message”). Excellent listening and empathic
skills.
2 Therapist did not seem destructive, but had significant interpersonal problems. At
times, therapist appeared unnecessarily impatient, aloof, insincere or had difficulty
conveying confidence and competence.
___5. COLLABORATION
0 Therapist did not attempt to set up a collaboration with patient.
2 Therapist attempted to collaborate with patient, but had difficulty either defining a
problem that the patient considered important or establishing rapport.
4 Therapist was able to collaborate with patient, focus on a problem that both patient
and therapist considered important, and establish rapport.
2 Session had some direction, but the therapist had significant problems with structuring
or pacing (e.g., too little structure, inflexible about structure, too slowly paced, too
rapidly paced).
2 Therapist relied too heavily on persuasion and debate, rather than guided discovery.
However, therapist’s style was supportive enough that patient did not seem to feel
attacked or defensive.
4 Therapist, for the most part, helped patient see new perspectives through guided
discovery (e.g., examining evidence, considering alternatives, weighing advantages and
disadvantages) rather than through debate. Used questioning appropriately.
6 Therapist was especially adept at using guided discovery during the session to explore
problems and help patient draw his/her own conclusions. Achieved an excellent
balance between skillful questioning and other modes of intervention.
6 Therapist very skillfully focused on key thoughts, assumptions, behaviors, etc. that were
most relevant to the problem area and offered considerable promise for progress.
4 Therapist seemed to have a generally coherent strategy for change that showed
reasonable promise and incorporated cognitive-behavioral techniques.
6 Therapist followed a consistent strategy for change that seemed very promising and
incorporated the most appropriate cognitive-behavioral techniques.
2 Therapist used cognitive-behavioral techniques, but there were significant flaws in the
way they were applied.
___11. HOMEWORK
0 Therapist did not attempt to incorporate homework relevant to cognitive therapy.
2 Therapist had significant difficulties incorporating homework (e.g., did not review
previous homework, did not explain homework in sufficient detail, assigned
inappropriate homework).
6 Therapist reviewed previous homework and carefully assigned homework drawn from
cognitive therapy for the coming week. Assignment seemed “custom tailored” to help
patient incorporate new perspectives, test hypotheses, experiment with new behaviors
discussed during session, etc.
______ 2. Feedback
______ 3. Understanding
______ 5. Collaboration