Behavioural rehearsal and homework

1. Introduction

Version followed: Arnold Lazarus's behaviour rehearsal (Wolpe & Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus, 2005 encyclopedia entry), delivered with the structured skills-teaching sequence of Bellack, Mueser, Gingerich & Agresta (2004) as used in VA training. Homework follows the Kazantzis "engagement" model (Kazantzis, MacEwan & Dattilio, 2005; Kazantzis & Miller, 2022; Ryum & Kazantzis, 2024) and the Beck Institute "Action Plan" (Beck & Broder, 2021).

This is a family of techniques used across behaviour therapy and CBT. It is not a stand-alone therapy, has no single manual and no certifying body. You slot it into a case formulation (assertiveness, social anxiety, depression, relapse prevention, couples work) instead of running it as a full treatment. [source: Lazarus 2005; Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]

Behaviour rehearsal means acting out a specific problem situation in session. The client tries a new response, the therapist plays the other person, and the two refine the response through modelling, coaching, feedback and repetition until the client can do it fluently and with little anxiety. Lazarus defines its aim as replacing deficient social and interpersonal responses with more effective patterns. He coined the term in 1966 to set it apart from general role play and from psychodrama; the 1950s forerunner was called "behavioristic psychodrama". [source: Lazarus 2005; Wolpe & Lazarus 1966 via psywww summary]
Homework (now often called the "action plan") is structured practice between sessions. It moves what was learned in the session into daily life and tests it there. [source: Beck & Broder 2021; Kazantzis 2021]

How change happens. Several mechanisms are proposed, depending on the source:

Repeated practice with the feared or unfamiliar person builds skill. The anxiety it evokes is counter-conditioned, since assertive training was originally grounded in Wolpe's reciprocal inhibition. [source: Wolpe 1958 as cited in Parr & Lundquist 1976]
Mastery experiences build self-efficacy, because clients who feel unprepared are less likely to succeed. [source: Lazarus 2005; Bandura 1977 via Pressbooks]
Between-session tasks generalise the gains and give real-world evidence that can be used to reappraise key beliefs. [source: Kazantzis 2021; Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]

2. Framework

There is no fixed phase model for behaviour rehearsal as a whole. What follows assembles the sequences the sources describe. [synthesis, built on the cited sources]

A. The rehearsal cycle (inside one session or across several). Main source: the Bellack et al. 2004 group format as taught by VA (Kinnaman 2009). Individual-therapy adaptation from Freedland & Meyer-Kalos 2015.

Review the previous homework.
Give a rationale for the skill and let the client say why it matters to them.
Break the skill into steps.
The therapist models the skill, then the client and therapist review the model.
The client role-plays.
Give positive feedback, then corrective feedback.
The client role-plays again, then gets more feedback. Repeat; the VA training aims for about three role plays per person per session.
Assign specific practice outside the session.

[source: Kinnaman 2009; VA SSGOC checklist from Bellack et al. 2004]

B. Lazarus/Wolpe individual format. Choose a concrete target situation. Set the scene, with the therapist playing the significant other. The client rehearses, repeating the opening move until it shows no timidity or anxiety. Vary how the other person responds. Record the client's answers, review them and have the client judge them. The therapist models better answers and the client imitates them. Repeat across weekly sessions. In the Mr PR job-interview case this ran for five weekly sessions. [source: Wolpe & Lazarus 1966 p. 47, as summarised by psywww; primary text not drawn on [uncertain]]

C. The homework cycle (every session in CBT). Kazantzis's 2005 "Guiding Model for Practice" has three phases: design, assign and review. Its detailed step list is in Kazantzis, MacEwan & Dattilio (2005), which is not drawn on here. The phase contents below come from Ryum & Kazantzis 2024 and Beck & Broder 2021. [uncertain on exact step wording]

Review happens at the start of the session and is linked to the agenda.
Design happens collaboratively during the session. The task should follow from the session's takeaways and from the client's goals and values.
Assign at the end of the session. Give the rationale, specify the details, write them down, check how likely the client is to do it, and plan for obstacles.

Typical format and dose:

Individual therapy. Rehearsal can take one segment of any session. Published cases and trials used weekly sessions over roughly five to six weeks for a single target skill. For example, Parr & Lundquist used six weekly sessions of about 48 minutes with adolescents. [source: psywww/Wolpe & Lazarus; Parr & Lundquist 1976]
Groups. The VA SST format uses 6–10 members meeting 2–3 times a week for 45–90 minutes. Each session focuses on one skill, ideally with closed membership and two co-leaders. [source: Kinnaman 2009]
Homework. Set in essentially every CBT session and reviewed in the next. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024; Beck & Broder 2021]

Criteria for moving on (the sources give no formal cut-offs, so these are a synthesis):

Within a scene. Repeat until the response is delivered without visible timidity or anxiety. That was Lazarus's criterion for the Mr PR entry. [source: psywww/Wolpe & Lazarus]
Up the difficulty ladder. Move up once the client performs the skill steps correctly at the current level and rates the anxiety as manageable. Scene complexity should match the client's level, and shaping should reinforce small steps. [source: Kinnaman 2009; SSGOC; synthesis on the anxiety rating]
From session to real life. Move once in-session performance is consistent and the client says they are at least about 90% likely to do the real-world task. A lower rating means you discuss obstacles first. [source: Beck & Broder 2021 for the likelihood check; synthesis on using it as a gate]
Ending a target. End when the skill is used in the target real situations, logged in homework records, and the client's own goal for that situation is met. [synthesis]

3. Guiding principles

[source: Kinnaman 2009; SSGOC; Ryum & Kazantzis 2024; Kazantzis 2021; Beck & Broder 2021; Lazarus 2005, as tagged]

Specific situations, not general traits. Rehearse a named person, place and line, not "being more assertive". [source: Lazarus 2005; psywww]
Practise rather than discuss. In skills work you teach and get the client doing the behaviour instead of processing feelings at length. VA training lists "too much discussion or processing" as a common clinician error. [source: Kinnaman 2009]
Take charge warmly. Structure the session, set an agenda and redirect tangents kindly but firmly. Hesitating to lead is a known error. [source: SSGOC; Kinnaman 2009]
Make it realistic and personal. Build scenes from the client's own upcoming situations. Avoid complicated or irrelevant scenarios. [source: Kinnaman 2009]
Shape small steps. Start where the client can succeed, then reinforce each approximation. [source: SSGOC]
Lead with positive feedback, and make all feedback behavioural. Start with what worked, tie each comment to a skill step, and give only one or two corrections at a time. [source: Kinnaman 2009]
Repetition is the active ingredient. One run-through is not enough; aim for about three per scene. The VA training's phrase is "Third time is the charm!" [source: Kinnaman 2009]
Don't accept a refusal too quickly. Treat a declined role play as something to troubleshoot, not the end of the matter. [source: Kinnaman 2009]
Collaborate on design. Design homework together and align it with the client's goals and values. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024; Kazantzis 2021]
Link homework to the session. It should test or apply what was just learned. Tasks consistent with session content get more engagement. [source: Kazantzis 2021]
Always give a rationale. If the client can't say why the task matters, it is unlikely to happen. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Specify how, when, where, how long, how often and with whom. Vague tasks fail. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Put it in writing. The client leaves with a written or recorded summary of the task and its rationale. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024; Beck & Broder 2021]
Design for success. Choose a task with a good chance of success, and match its difficulty to the client's current symptoms. [source: Beck & Broder 2021; Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Aim for engagement, not compliance. Treat partial or unplanned outcomes as learning, and explore what the task meant to the client. [source: Kazantzis & Miller 2022; Kazantzis 2021]
Always review. Unreviewed homework teaches the client that it doesn't matter. Review happens at the start of the session and is tied to the agenda. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Watch the word "homework". Many clients associate it with school. "Action plan" or "experiment" often lands better. [source: Beck & Broder 2021; Kazantzis 2021]
Look at your own part first. Before blaming the client for non-completion, check your rationale, task fit, the alliance, and your own beliefs, such as demanding standards or excessive self-sacrifice. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Stay responsive. Adjust tasks as the client's needs and context change. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]

4. Intervention inventory

Part A covers rehearsal techniques and Part B covers homework techniques. All therapist language is illustrative wording of my own unless it is quoted and cited.

Part A: Behaviour rehearsal

A1. Selecting and specifying the target situation

Purpose / when. This is the first step of any rehearsal. It turns a vague complaint ("I'm a pushover", "I freeze in interviews") into a scene you can practise. [source: Lazarus 2005; Kinnaman 2009 “individualize the scene”]
Steps:
1. Ask for a recent or upcoming instance and get who, where, when, what was said, and what the client did or failed to do.
2. Agree the goal of the scene in observable terms, for example "say no to the extra shift and keep eye contact".
3. Collect the details you need to play the other person: their typical words, tone, and how they push back.
4. If several situations are relevant, list them and rate how hard each is (0–100). Start with one the client can probably manage. [synthesis, by analogy with graded hierarchies; scene complexity matched to the client's level is from Kinnaman 2009]
Example language (illustrative). "Let's take one moment this week where this happens. Who's in front of you, and what do they say first?"
Watch for. Scenes that are too general to act out, and choosing the hardest situation first. It is working when you can both picture the scene well enough for you to play the other person convincingly.

A2. Rationale and breaking the skill into steps

Purpose / when. Use this before modelling, so the client knows what good performance looks like and why it matters. [source: Kinnaman 2009; SSGOC]
Steps:
1. Explain briefly why the skill helps, then ask the client for their own reasons. In groups, ask members to share an experience.
2. Agree three or four observable steps. For example, the VA "making a request" skill has three: look at the person, say exactly what you want, and say how it would make you feel. Write the steps on a card or board.
3. Include the non-verbal channels Lazarus emphasises: tone, inflection, hesitations, posture and eye contact. [source: Kinnaman 2009 for the three steps; Lazarus 2005 for non-verbal channels]
Example language (illustrative). "Asking clearly makes it more likely you'll get what you need, and less likely you'll stew afterwards. Here are the three things we'll practise..."
Watch for. Too many steps, or abstract steps such as "be confident". It is working when the client can name the steps before the role play.

A3. Therapist modelling (live demonstration)

Purpose / when. Use this before the client's first attempt, or whenever the client can't produce the behaviour. The VA training describes two variants. In supplementary modelling the leader plays the client's part. In discrimination modelling the leader contrasts a good and a poor version. [source: Kinnaman 2009; Bandura 1969 via Pressbooks/psywww]
Steps:
1. Set up a short scene the client will recognise. In a group, a co-leader or member plays the other person; in individual work, describe the other person's lines or have the client read them.
2. Perform the skill using each step clearly. Keep it under a minute.
3. Ask the client which steps they saw and how you did each one.
4. Optional discrimination modelling: show a passive or aggressive version, then the target version, and ask what differed.
Example language (illustrative). "Watch me do it once, then tell me which of the three steps you saw."
Watch for. Models so polished that the client feels they could never match them. Coping-style models that hesitate and recover are not specified in these sources, so their use here is [synthesis]. It is working when the client can describe the specific behaviours they saw.

A4. Core behaviour rehearsal (therapist plays the other person)

Purpose / when. This is the central technique, for any interpersonal situation the client avoids or handles badly, such as refusals, requests, criticism, interviews or confrontations. [source: Lazarus 2005; Wolpe & Lazarus 1966 via psywww]
Steps:
1. Arrange the room to match the situation. In the Mr PR case, the client left the room, knocked and entered as he would at the interview.
2. You play the other person, using the client's description of them. Start at a realistic but moderate level of difficulty.
3. The client delivers their response.
4. Stop and give feedback (see A7), then run the scene again.
5. Repeat the opening segment until it is delivered without visible timidity or anxiety. That was Lazarus's criterion for the entry in Mr PR.
6. Then extend to the rest of the interaction. [source: psywww summary of Wolpe & Lazarus 1966 p. 47]
Example language (illustrative). "I'll be your manager. I'll start the way she usually does, and you answer as you'd like to. Ready? ... 'I really need you to cover Saturday.'"
Watch for. Rising anxiety (ask for a 0–100 rating), the client going out of role to explain, and you playing the other person too harshly too early. It is working when there is less hesitation, more of the skill steps are present, and the client's anxiety rating drops across repetitions.

A5. Varying the other person's response (graded variations)

Purpose / when. Use this after the client is fluent with a cooperative version. It prepares them for the range of reactions they may meet in real life. [source: Wolpe & Lazarus 1966 via psywww; Kinnaman 2009]
Steps:
1. List plausible reactions. In the Mr PR case these were being greeted at the door, being ignored by a preoccupied employer, and being over-welcomed.
2. Rehearse each one, moving from easier to harder.
3. Add common pushbacks such as guilt-tripping, anger, interrupting or repeating the demand.
Example language (illustrative). "That went well. This time I'm going to ignore you for a bit and keep reading. Let's see what you do."
Watch for. Escalating faster than the client's skill. It is working when the client keeps the skill steps going under a less cooperative partner.

A6. Role reversal

Purpose / when. Lazarus describes role reversal as the therapist playing the patient while the patient plays the other person. This lets the therapist model the desired verbal and non-verbal behaviour. Use it when the client is stuck or can't picture a better response. [source: Lazarus 2005]
Steps:
1. Swap roles. The client plays the difficult person as realistically as they can.
2. You respond using the target skill.
3. Ask the client how it felt to be on the receiving end, and what they noticed about your words, tone, posture and eye contact.
4. Swap back so the client tries again in their own role.
Example language (illustrative). "Let's swap. You be your brother, and say it exactly the way he would. I'll be you."
Watch for. Clients who play the other person as harsher than reality, and distress from voicing an abuser. Do not use role reversal with abusive figures without careful consent [synthesis]. It is working when the client then reproduces elements of the modelled response.

A7. Feedback (positive first, specific, limited)

Purpose / when. Use this after every role play. [source: Kinnaman 2009; SSGOC; Freedland & Meyer-Kalos 2015]
Steps:
1. Ask the client first what went well. In a group, also ask members.
2. Give specific positive feedback tied to each skill step.
3. Give one or two specific corrective suggestions, phrased as what to do next time.
4. Build the suggestions into the next run-through straight away.
Example language (illustrative). "You looked right at me and said exactly what you wanted. That's two of the three steps. Next time, add how it would help you, and try it a bit slower."
Watch for. Vague praise ("good job"), long lists of faults, and starting with criticism. The VA training lists vague, non-behavioural feedback and too little reinforcement as common clinician errors. [source: Kinnaman 2009] It is working when the next attempt includes the suggested change.

A8. Coaching and prompting during rehearsal

Purpose / when. Use this when the client gets partway through a role play and falters. In the VA SST, coaching means verbal prompts and prompting means non-verbal signals. In the analogue research, coaching and rehearsal contributed to improvement, while modelling contributed less. [source: Kinnaman 2009; McFall & Twentyman 1973 as cited in Parr & Lundquist 1976]
Steps:
1. Agree a signal in advance, such as pointing to the eyes for eye contact or raising a hand for volume.
2. During the role play, give brief prompts without stopping the scene.
3. Fade the prompts across repetitions.
Example language (illustrative). Say quietly, "Say what you want," then step back into role.
Watch for. Over-prompting that makes the client depend on you. It is working when the client needs fewer prompts with each run.

A9. Recorded performance review (audio or video)

Purpose / when. Use this when the client can't judge their own tone, hesitations, posture or eye contact. [source: Lazarus 2005; Wolpe & Lazarus 1966 via psywww]
Steps:
1. Get consent, then record the role play, for example on the client's phone so they keep the recording.
2. Play it back. Ask the client to watch it from the other person's point of view; Mr PR judged his recorded answers "as if he were the employer".
3. Pick one or two things to change, model them if needed, and re-record.
Example language (illustrative). "Watch this as if you were the interviewer. What impression are you getting?"
Watch for. Harsh self-criticism or shame when clients see themselves, especially those with social anxiety. In one study, playback feedback added little to rehearsal alone (McFall & Marston 1970 as cited in Parr & Lundquist), so treat recording as optional. It is working when the client's self-rating matches yours and they notice specific changes.

A10. The structured skills-training sequence (group or individual)

Purpose / when. Use this when teaching a set of skills to clients with marked skill deficits, such as clients with serious mental illness, adolescents or groups. It packages A2–A8 into a fixed order. [source: Bellack et al. 2004 via Kinnaman 2009 and SSGOC; Freedland & Meyer-Kalos 2015]
Steps (VA 12-step group format, paraphrased):
1. Review homework.
2. Give the rationale.
3. Members share experiences or reasons.
4. Explain the skill steps.
5. Leaders model the skill.
6. One member role-plays.
7. Give feedback.
8. The member role-plays again.
9. Ask the group for feedback.
10. Repeat with feedback.
11. Do steps 5–9 with every member.
12. Assign homework.
- Keep the session lively, focus on one skill per session, and give frequent explicit reinforcement. Active roles for members include reading the steps aloud, giving feedback, and acting as the partner in role plays.
Example language (illustrative). "Today's skill is making a request. Who can read the first step?"
Watch for. The group drifting into general discussion, the leader accepting a member's refusal to role-play, and scenarios that are too complicated. The VA fidelity tools are the Social Skills Group Observation Checklist and Group Format (Bellack et al. 2004), which can be rated by the clinician or by an observer. It is working when every member completes several role plays and reports homework practice.

A11. Self-rehearsal outside the session

Purpose / when. Use this to consolidate a rehearsed response before the real event. Lazarus notes that rehearsal can be done with a therapist, with a friend, or alone, for example rehearsing a speech in front of a mirror. [source: Lazarus 2005; Freedland & Meyer-Kalos 2015]
Steps:
1. Agree the exact script and the skill steps, written on a card.
2. Decide who the practice partner will be, or whether it will be a mirror or a phone recording.
3. Set how many run-throughs and when, ideally shortly before the real situation.
Example language (illustrative). "Who could play your landlord for five minutes this weekend? If no one, try it out loud in front of the mirror three times."
Watch for. Practice partners who mock the client or give hostile feedback. It is working when the client reports practising and arrives at the real situation feeling prepared.

A12. Covert (imaginal) rehearsal

Purpose / when. Use this when live role play isn't possible or acceptable, or to check a homework plan for snags. Lazarus's encyclopedia entry lists covert rehearsal as a related procedure, but its description is not drawn on here. [uncertain] The Beck Institute describes imagery used to replay the moment before a task to find interfering thoughts. [source: Beck & Broder 2021]
Steps (general procedure):
1. The client closes their eyes and imagines the situation in detail.
2. They imagine performing the skill steps.
3. They notice where they hesitate and what thoughts arise.
4. Discuss and problem-solve what came up, then repeat the imagery with the solution.
- [synthesis/uncertain: the step list is my construction, built from the Beck imagery example and the general CBT use of covert rehearsal]
Example language (illustrative). "Picture yourself at your desk tomorrow at 10, about to send that email. What's going through your mind?"
Watch for. Vague imagery, and avoidance inside the image. It is working when it brings up specific obstacles that you can then plan for.

Part B: Homework (action plans)

B1. Collaborative design linked to the session

Purpose / when. Use this in the last part of every session. The aim is a task the client sees as theirs and that follows from what the session uncovered. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024; Kazantzis 2021]
Steps:
1. Summarise the session's key takeaway, or ask the client to.
2. Ask what they could do this week to try it out or build on it.
3. Offer options if needed, such as a real-world version of the rehearsed scene, a monitoring task, or practice with a partner.
4. Check that the task fits the client's goals and values.
5. Adjust its difficulty to the client's current symptoms and circumstances.
Example language (illustrative). "Today you found you can say no to your manager in here without backing down. What's one place this week you could try a small version of that?"
Watch for. Therapist-dictated tasks, and tasks unrelated to the session. Greater consistency between homework and session content is associated with more engagement. [source: Kazantzis 2021] It is working when the client proposes or modifies the task.

B2. Giving the rationale

Purpose / when. Use this with every new task, and again when engagement drops. Not understanding the rationale is a named reason for non-completion. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Steps:
1. Link the task to the client's goal in one or two sentences.
2. Ask the client to say back in their own words why it might help.
Example language (illustrative). "Most change happens between sessions. Practising out there is how this becomes automatic. How do you see it helping?"
Watch for. The client agreeing without being able to explain why. It is working when they can state the purpose in their own words.

B3. Specifying the task and writing it down

Purpose / when. Use this when the task is being assigned. Specificity about how, when, where, for how long, how often and with whom is linked to better outcomes. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024; Beck & Broder 2021]
Steps:
1. Pin down each of the six details.
2. Agree what counts as done, including partial completion.
3. Agree how it will be recorded. The VA "making a request" sheet logs the date and the person asked.
4. Write or record the action plan together with its rationale on paper, a phone note or an audio memo, and make sure the client takes it away.
- [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024; Beck & Broder 2021; Kinnaman 2009]
Example language (illustrative). "So: Thursday, after the team meeting, at your manager's desk, you'll ask for Friday off using the three steps, and jot down what happened. Let's write that on your card."
Watch for. Tasks the client can't state back. It is working when the client can repeat the plan without looking.

B4. Likelihood check

Purpose / when. Use this straight after specifying the task. Beck & Broder ask how likely the client is to do the assignment. If the answer is 90% or lower, they discuss what could interfere. [source: Beck & Broder 2021]
Steps:
1. Ask for a 0–100% likelihood rating.
2. If it is 90% or below, ask what would get in the way.
3. Problem-solve the obstacle (B5), or shrink the task until the rating is high.
Example language (illustrative). "On a scale of 0 to 100%, how likely is it you'll actually do this by Thursday? ... What stops it being 100?"
Watch for. Socially compliant ratings that are high but flat. Check against past completion. It is working when ratings predict actual completion.

B5. Anticipating obstacles

Purpose / when. Use this when an obstacle is likely from the formulation or the likelihood rating. Typical obstacles include practical barriers, anxious predictions about the task, depressed clients discounting what they achieve, and core beliefs triggered in interpersonal tasks. [source: Kazantzis 2021; Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Steps:
1. Ask what could get in the way, both practical (time, place, other people) and internal (thoughts, mood).
2. Use the case formulation to predict likely patterns, such as perfectionism or fear of evaluation.
3. Make a specific plan for each obstacle, such as a backup time or a coping statement.
4. Optionally run a covert rehearsal (A12) to test the plan.
Example language (illustrative). "Knowing you, what thought might show up just before you knock on her door? What would you want to say back to it?"
Watch for. Obstacle planning that turns into a long session of reassurance. It is working when the client reports using the backup plan.

B6. Framing: action plan, experiment, or tentative suggestion

Purpose / when. Use this with clients who react badly to the word "homework". Use a more tentative framing when a direct expectation could cause a rupture. [source: Beck & Broder 2021; Kazantzis & Miller 2022; Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Steps:
1. Use "action plan" or "experiment".
2. With clients who are sensitive to being controlled, offer the task as an optional experiment, guided by the formulation. Psychodynamic therapists often suggest tasks indirectly, for example by wondering aloud what might happen if the client tried something.
- Note that the Beck Institute regards action plans as not optional once agreed. Where sources differ, decide from the formulation. [uncertain: tension between sources]
Example language (illustrative). "I wonder what would happen if you tried saying it once this week, just to see?"
Watch for. Framing so loose that nothing is agreed. It is working when the client engages without feeling pressured.

B7. Reviewing homework at the start of the session

Purpose / when. Use this at the start of every session. Competence in reviewing homework predicts outcome independently of the alliance. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Steps:
1. Put the review on the agenda.
2. Ask what the client did, how it went, and what they learned.
3. Use Socratic questions to draw out its meaning for their beliefs.
4. Reinforce the effort, including partial attempts.
5. Treat unexpected outcomes as useful information.
6. Use what you learned to shape this session and the next task.
7. In skills groups, review each member's practice record first.
- [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024; Kinnaman 2009; Kazantzis 2021]
Example language (illustrative). "Let's start with your plan from last week. What did you try, and what did you notice? ... What does that tell you about your prediction that she'd be furious?"
Watch for. Skipping the review when the session gets busy, and reviewing only whether it was done rather than what was learned. It is working when the review produces new perspectives you can build on.

B8. Exploring non-completion

Purpose / when. Use this when the task wasn't done or was abandoned. [source: Beck & Broder 2021; Kazantzis 2021; Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Steps:
1. Respond with curiosity, not disappointment.
2. Check practical barriers first, then whether the rationale was clear and the task too hard.
3. If the client "doesn't know why", use imagery. Take them back to the moment just before the task and identify the thoughts that interfered.
4. Examine those thoughts with Socratic questions and record them, for example on a two-column thought record. Beck & Broder's worked example does exactly this.
5. Use what you find to anticipate interfering thoughts in the coming week.
6. Explore the client's beliefs about coping and change, and the pros and cons of not engaging.
7. Ask whether the non-completion says something about the relationship (see section 5).
8. Redesign the task together.
Example language (illustrative). "No problem. That's useful information. Let's go back to Tuesday evening, just before you were going to call. Where were you, and what went through your mind?"
Watch for. Blaming or shaming, and repeating the same task unchanged. It is working when you uncover a specific barrier and the redesigned task gets done.

B9. Assessing homework engagement and beliefs

Purpose / when. Use this periodically, or when engagement is poor. The Homework Rating Scale–Revised (HRS-II; Kazantzis, Deane, Ronan & L'Abate 2005) is a validated client-report measure of homework-related beliefs and experiences, with no cut-off scores. Its items are not reproduced here; get it from the developers or the 2005 book. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024; Kazantzis, Deane & Ronan 2004]
Steps:
1. Give the measure, or ask the same domains in conversation: perceived difficulty, obstacles, how much the client believes the task helps, how it fits their goals, and how capable they feel.
2. Discuss any low ratings with the client.
3. Adjust the task design.
Example language (illustrative). "How hard did that feel, and how much do you think it's helping? I want the plan to fit you."
Watch for. Treating the score as a verdict. It is working when it opens up an honest conversation about the task.

B10. Monitoring your own homework competence

Purpose / when. Use this in supervision or self-review. The Homework Adherence and Competence Scale (HAACS; Kazantzis, Wedge & Dobson, unpublished) and the Homework-Specific Therapist Behaviors Scale (HSTBS; Conklin et al. 2018) rate how therapists select, plan and review homework and handle obstacles. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Steps:
1. Record sessions with consent.
2. Rate the assign and review segments, checking for a rationale, collaboration, specificity, obstacle planning and review.
3. Pick one gap to work on.
4. Practise the weak component in role play with a peer.
Example language. Not applicable.
Watch for. Your own beliefs that block homework, such as "homework over-structures therapy" or "it's only for distressed clients". Treat these as hypotheses to test. It is working when your ratings improve and clients engage more.

B11. Homework within non-CBT frameworks

Purpose / when. Use this if you work psychodynamically or experientially but want between-session practice. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Steps:
1. Psychodynamic. Make an indirect suggestion, or invite the client to try a new interpersonal behaviour and bring back what happened.
2. Humanistic/experiential. Offer an optional exploration, such as a self-soothing task or an emotion-awareness diary.
3. Review what the client brings back as material for the therapy.
- The evidence for this outside CBT is limited, according to the source.
Example language (illustrative). "You might notice this week when that tightness in your chest comes up. If you like, jot a word or two down."
Watch for. Imposing CBT-style structure where it doesn't fit the model. It is working when the client brings back material that deepens the session work.

5. Handling problems

Items tagged with a source come from that source. Items tagged [synthesis] are my own clinical guidance and are not in the sources.

Client declines to role-play ("It feels fake", "I'll just do it on the day"):
- Don't accept the first refusal; VA training lists this as a common clinician error. [source: Kinnaman 2009]
- Lower the barrier step by step. First model the skill yourself (A3), then try role reversal with the client playing the other person (A6). Next, have the client say just the first line while seated. Then build up to a full scene. [synthesis using A3/A6]
- Normalise the awkwardness: "Rehearsal feels odd. That's partly why it works: you get the awkwardness out of the way in here." (illustrative)
Anxiety overwhelms the client during rehearsal (freezing, tears, dissociation):
- Stop the scene and step out of role explicitly ("I'm me again").
- Ground the client and take a 0–100 rating.
- Drop to an easier variation, such as a gentler other person or a shorter line, or switch to covert rehearsal.
- Lazarus's model expects anxiety to fall with repetition, so repeat the easier version until it does before stepping up. [source: Wolpe & Lazarus 1966 via psywww for repetition to no anxiety; synthesis for the de-escalation steps]
Trauma-related or abusive figures:
- Don't have the client rehearse confronting, or voicing, a perpetrator unless trauma work is part of an agreed plan and the client consents knowing what it involves.
- Use neutral stand-in scenes first. [synthesis]
Risk in real-world assertion tasks:
- Don't assign confrontation or refusal tasks where the other person may become violent or retaliate, as in domestic abuse, coercive control or unsafe workplaces.
- In those cases, rehearse safety-oriented responses and safety planning instead. [synthesis]
Over-rehearsed, robotic delivery:
- Vary the other person's responses (A5).
- Encourage the client to put the steps into their own words rather than memorise a script. [synthesis; varying responses from Wolpe & Lazarus 1966 via psywww]
Homework not done (non-adherence):
- Run B8: curiosity first, then practical barriers, then rationale and difficulty, then imagery to find the interfering thoughts and Socratic work on them. Then shrink and redesign the task. [source: Beck & Broder 2021; Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
- Look at your own part before the client's. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024]
Repeated non-completion despite redesign:
- Explore what the task means personally, the client's beliefs about coping and change, and the pros and cons of not engaging. [source: Kazantzis 2021]
- Consider whether the timing is wrong for the stage of change. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024, citing Prochaska & Norcross]
- Agree openly on a lighter between-session structure rather than leaving tasks undone each week. [synthesis]
Homework as a rupture or resistance marker:
- Non-engagement can express opposition to the treatment or the therapist, especially in clients with strong needs for dominance or attachment. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024, citing Okamoto & Kazantzis 2021 and Safran & Muran 2000]
- Name the pattern without blame. Invite feedback on the task and on you, take your share of responsibility, and offer a more tentative experiment framing (B6). [source for framing: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024; rupture-repair wording is synthesis]
- Example (illustrative): "I wonder if these plans have started to feel like something I'm putting on you. Is that close?"
Depressed clients who discount what they did:
- In review, slow down. Ask what the client actually did, and have them rate how much of the plan they completed before they evaluate it. [source: Kazantzis 2021 for the problem; synthesis for the response]
Perfectionistic or shame-prone clients:
- Agree in advance what partial completion looks like.
- Frame tasks as experiments where any result is data. [source: Ryum & Kazantzis 2024 for the learning framing; synthesis for the specifics]
Interpersonal tasks that trigger core beliefs (rejection, failure):
- Predict this from the formulation and prepare coping responses.
- Process strong emotions in the next session rather than dropping the task. [source: Kazantzis 2021]
Socially anxious clients distressed by video playback:
- Make recording optional, since its added value was small in early studies.
- If you do use it, have the client predict how they will look before watching, then compare. [source: McFall & Marston via Parr & Lundquist 1976; the prediction step is synthesis]
Group problems (members dominating, drifting off-topic, silent members):
- Redirect kindly but firmly and keep to one skill per session.
- Give every member a role play, and give silent members active jobs such as reading steps or giving feedback. [source: SSGOC; Kinnaman 2009]
Cognitive impairment, serious mental illness or low literacy:
- Use fewer, simpler steps and more repetitions, with frequent sessions.
- Keep homework sheets simple, such as date and person. [source: Kinnaman 2009 format; synthesis on the adaptation details]
Telehealth:
- Rehearsal works on video. Agree the scene and the signals for stepping out of role in advance.
- Send the written action plan by message during the session. [synthesis]

Sources

Sources:

Further reading (not drawn on; claims attributed to them come through the pages above):

Wolpe, J., & Lazarus, A. A. (1966). Behavior Therapy Techniques: A Guide to the Treatment of Neuroses. Pergamon.
Lazarus, A. A. (1966). Behaviour rehearsal vs. non-directive therapy vs. advice in effecting behaviour change. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 4, 209–212.
Lazarus, A. A. (1971). Behavior Therapy and Beyond. McGraw-Hill.
Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition. Stanford University Press.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of Behavior Modification. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bellack, A. S., Mueser, K. T., Gingerich, S., & Agresta, J. (2004). Social Skills Training for Schizophrenia: A Step-by-Step Guide (2nd ed.). Guilford.
McFall, R. M., & Twentyman, C. T. (1973). Four experiments on the relative contribution of rehearsal, modeling, and coaching to assertion training. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 199–218.
Kazantzis, N., Deane, F. P., Ronan, K. R., & L'Abate, L. (Eds.) (2005). Using Homework Assignments in Cognitive Behavior Therapy. Routledge. This includes Kazantzis, MacEwan & Dattilio's "guiding model for practice".
Kazantzis, N., Dattilio, F. M., & Dobson, K. S. (2017). The Therapeutic Relationship in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. Guilford.

Could not be read:

The full texts of Lazarus 1971 and Wolpe's Practice of Behavior Therapy on archive.org are lending-restricted.
An archive.org copy of a behaviour-therapy techniques text, Europe PMC and some journal pages are not drawn on.
The Massey thesis's full PDF (with the Guiding Model's step figure) is not drawn on.
As a result, Lazarus's covert-rehearsal entry and the exact step list of the Kazantzis Guiding Model remain [uncertain].

← Previous · II-059Modelling and participant modelling Next · II-061 →Self-control therapy for depression