There is now expert consensus that directly observing the work of trainee therapists vs. relying upon self-report of sessions, is critical to providing the accurate feedback required to attain a range of competencies. In spite of this expert consensus however, and the broadly positive attitudes towards video review among supervisees, video feedback methods remain under-utilized in clinical supervision. This paper outlines some of the weaknesses that affect feedback based solely on self-report methods, before introducing some of the specific benefits that video feedback methods can offer the training and supervision context. It is argued that video feedback methods fit seamlessly into CBT supervision providing direct, accessible, effective, efficient and accurate observation of the learning situation, and optimizing the chances for accurate self-reflections and planning further improvements in performance. To demonstrate the utility of video feedback techniques to CBT supervision, two specific video feedback techniques are introduced and described: the Give-me-5 technique and the I-spy technique. Case examples of CBT supervision using the two techniques are provided and explored, and guidance as to the supervision contexts in which each of the two techniques are suitable, individually, and in tandem, are outlined. Finally, best practice guidelines for the use of video feedback techniques in supervision are outlined.

Background: Video feedback (VF) interventions effectively reduce social anxiety symptoms and negative self-perception, particularly when they are preceded by cognitive preparation (CP) and followed by cognitive review. Aims: In the current study, we re-examined data from a study on the efficacy of a novel VF intervention for individuals high in social anxiety to test the hypothesis that physical appearance anxiety would moderate the effects of VF. Method: Data were analyzed from 68 socially anxious participants who performed an initial public speech, and were randomly assigned to an Elaborated VF condition (VF plus cognitive preparation and cognitive review), a Standard VF condition (VF plus cognitive preparation) or a No VF condition (exposure alone), and then performed a second speech. Results: As hypothesized, when appearance concerns were low, both participants who received Elaborated and Standard VF were significantly less anxious during speech 2 than those in the No VF condition. However, when levels of appearance concern were high, neither Elaborated nor Standard VF reduced anxiety levels during speech 2 beyond the No VF condition. Conclusions: Results from our analog sample suggest the importance of tailoring treatment protocols to accommodate the idiosyncratic concerns of socially anxious patients.