Department of Counseling & Human Services · Upper-Division Undergraduate
COUN 421: Counseling Theories
Assignment 1
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy versus Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy: A Comparative Case Analysis
Assignment Overview
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and rational emotive behavioral therapy (REBT) are two of the most widely practiced and empirically supported approaches in the counseling field. Although both frameworks share theoretical roots in the ABC model of cognition and behavior, they diverge considerably in their assumptions about the therapeutic relationship, the nature of irrational thinking, and the goals of treatment. For a developing counselor, understanding those distinctions is not merely an academic exercise. It shapes how you conceptualize client problems, select interventions, and measure progress.
In this assignment, you will apply both frameworks to a provided client case, compare their theoretical assumptions and practical implications, and make a reasoned argument for which approach you would use with the client and why. Your analysis should go beyond surface-level description and engage with the clinical reasoning that distinguishes a competent practitioner from someone who can only recite definitions.
Learning Objectives: Upon completing this assignment, you will be able to (1) distinguish the core theoretical assumptions of CBT and REBT; (2) identify at least three clinically meaningful differences between the two approaches; (3) apply both frameworks analytically to a real client scenario; and (4) defend a theoretically grounded therapy selection using peer-reviewed evidence.
Client Case Scenario
Priya has no prior history of formal mental health treatment. She identifies as South Asian and notes that her cultural background places high value on academic achievement and family honor. She is motivated to change but expresses skepticism that “talking about thoughts” will be sufficient. She has asked directly whether therapy can help her stop feeling like a fraud.
Her presenting concerns center on automatic negative thoughts following perceived failure, behavioral avoidance, and what appears to be a deeply held irrational belief — specifically, that her worth as a person is contingent on flawless academic performance.
Assignment Task
Write an 825–1,050-word paper in which you conduct a comparative analysis of CBT and REBT as applied to Priya’s case. Your paper should be organized, analytically grounded, and written in formal academic prose. Do not use section headers within the body unless your instructor specifies otherwise; develop your argument through well-structured paragraphs.
Your paper must address all of the following:
- Similarities between CBT and REBT. Briefly identify at least two theoretical or practical similarities between the two approaches as they would apply to Priya’s presenting concerns. Avoid spending more than one paragraph on this section; the comparative analysis and clinical application are the priorities.
- Differences between CBT and REBT — minimum of three. Identify and explain at least three meaningful differences between CBT and REBT. For each difference, explain how it would specifically affect your clinical approach with Priya. Consider dimensions such as the therapeutic relationship, the treatment of irrational beliefs, the role of unconditional self-acceptance, the use of psychoeducation, and the reasoning style each approach employs.
- Therapy selection and clinical rationale. Identify which approach — or which specific variant of CBT — you would use with Priya and explain your reasoning. Your selection must be supported by at least two peer-reviewed sources. Address how the approach you select accounts for Priya’s cultural background, her skepticism about therapy, and the nature of her core irrational belief.
A note on depth: At the 400 level, restating textbook definitions will not earn full marks. You are expected to apply theory to this specific client, acknowledge the limitations of your chosen approach where relevant, and demonstrate that your therapy selection is clinically reasoned rather than simply a statement of personal preference.
Format and Submission Requirements
- Length: 825–1,050 words (excluding title page and reference list)
- Citation style: APA 7th Edition — title page, in-text citations, and a reference list
- Sources: Minimum of three peer-reviewed sources published between 2015 and 2026; at least one must be an empirical or clinical study rather than a textbook
- Formatting: 12-point Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1-inch margins
- File type: Submit as a .docx or .pdf via the course portal
- Deadline: 11:59 PM on Sunday of Week 3
- Academic integrity: All submissions are reviewed for originality. Paraphrase all sources accurately; excessive direct quotation will be penalized under formatting criteria.
Grading Rubric
| Criterion | Excellent | Proficient | Developing | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Similarities — CBT and REBT | Two or more accurate, theoretically grounded similarities identified and briefly connected to the client case | Similarities identified but stated in general terms without connection to Priya’s presenting concerns | Similarities missing, inaccurate, or limited to one vague point | 15 |
| Differences — CBT and REBT (minimum 3) | Three or more clinically meaningful differences explained with specific reference to how each would affect treatment of Priya; theory accurately represented | Three differences identified but clinical application to the case is limited or partially inaccurate | Fewer than three differences, or differences are superficial and lack clinical application | 30 |
| Therapy Selection and Clinical Rationale | Clear selection supported by two or more peer-reviewed sources; addresses Priya’s cultural context, skepticism, and core belief; limitations of the approach acknowledged | Selection is made and supported by at least one source; cultural context partially addressed; limitations absent | Selection stated without adequate justification or source support; cultural context ignored | 30 |
| Use of Evidence and Citation Accuracy | Three or more appropriate peer-reviewed sources; all citations accurate in APA 7th edition; at least one empirical study included | Minimum sources met; minor APA errors; sources are relevant | Fewer than three sources, or sources are not peer-reviewed; multiple APA errors | 15 |
| Writing Quality and Formatting | Clear, formal academic prose; well-organized paragraphs; meets word count; correct APA title page and reference list | Generally clear writing with minor grammar or formatting issues; word count met | Writing is unclear, poorly organized, or falls outside word count; formatting incomplete | 10 |
Total: 100 points
That said, the therapeutic relationship dimension warrants careful consideration in this case. Priya’s cultural background and expressed skepticism suggest she may benefit from a structured, collaborative, and transparent approach — qualities that CBT’s emphasis on psychoeducation and explicit skill-building tends to support more readily than REBT’s relatively directive philosophical disputation. A practitioner might reasonably consider a hybrid approach, using REBT’s conceptual framework to address the core irrational belief while drawing on CBT’s relational and psychoeducational tools to build early rapport and maintain engagement. Dialectical behavior therapy, as one evidence-based CBT variant, could also be considered given its particular focus on self-invalidation and emotional dysregulation, though its standard application is more resource-intensive than the brief counseling context may allow.
Learning Resources and References
The following sources meet the currency, peer-review, and relevance standards required for COUN 421 Assignment 1. Access them through your institution’s library database or the DOI links provided.
- David, D., Cotet, C., Matu, S., Mogoase, C., & Stefan, S. (2018). 50 years of rational-emotive and cognitive-behavioral therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22514
- Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(5), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1
- Szentagotai, A., & Jones, J. (2010). The behavioral consequences of irrational beliefs. In D. David, S. J. Lynn, & A. Ellis (Eds.), Rational and irrational beliefs: Research, theory, and clinical practice (pp. 75–97). Oxford University Press.
- Craske, M. G. (2017). Cognitive-behavioral therapy (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000067-000
- Fenn, K., & Byrne, M. (2013). The key principles of cognitive behavioural therapy. InnovAiT, 6(9), 579–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755738012471029