Training Standards:
How counsellors navigate the flood of CPD, tools, and theories, and why clarity matters more than hype.
The Problem?
As therapists, we come from a wide range of backgrounds, training programs, and experiences. This diversity is invaluable, but it makes assessment of knowledge and skill levels challenging. A current hot topic, SCoPEd, illustrates this challenge: SCoPEd attempts to clarify and measure therapist competency, with specific expectations and evidence needed to confirm standards.
However, while practitioners are increasingly scrutinised, including expectations around reviewing and recording continued professional development (CPD), the theories, tools, and models used for that CPD often escape the same rigorous assessment, leaving therapists to navigate marketing and hype carefully.
The CPD Landscape and Commercialisation
The therapy field is constantly evolving and increasingly commercial. Training to become a counsellor is expensive, and with over 70,000 counsellors and psychotherapists in the UK expected to complete at least 50 CPD hours annually, training represents a substantial and potentially lucrative industry. While many practitioners can critically evaluate marketing, navigating the many that hit your inbox daily, not everyone has the time or expertise.
A shiny promotion is one thing, but what I find particularly challenging are claims of scientific backing for specific theories or guaranteed results for all clients. Interventions, tools, and strategies are often “hyped” to boost sales. While this makes business sense, it raises ethical questions: who monitors these claims, and is anyone policing them?
Ana Lund, a psychotherapist who researches and writes about the interplay of neuroscience and psychotherapy, recently explored Polyvagal Theory, highlighting the lack of scientific research underpinning it, no peer-reviewed work, and how popular interpretations can overstate the limited evidence. This prompted me to dive down a rabbit hole and reflect on how all claims are presented in CPD courses and resources.
Diana Fox Tilson is currently working on Debunking Ableist Pseudoscientific Pop Psychology. She explores why the body might not keep the score and that our community-wide obsession with Van der Kolk has perhaps gone a bit too far. Like Tilson, I did not know that the triune brain model, which is “the idea that humans have a primitive brain centre that acts on instinct… has long been considered nonsense by most neuroscientists; the theory was first disproved back in the 1970s.” I recommend perusing her references.
Misrepresentation occurs when emerging models (Polyvagal, somatic therapies, brain spotting, internal family systems) claim full “scientific proof” prematurely. Transparency about what is supported by data vs theory/clinical observation is key.
Ethical and Regulatory Considerations
Organisations like the BACP guide training providers, covering core competencies, ethics, teaching hours, and assessment methods. However, this guidance does not extend to CPD providers or to those offering specific therapeutic tools and models through literature, courses, or webinars, leaving a regulatory gap.
We are not taught to investigate and consider different measures of success in these tools and models. NACP ask of their members that “all advertising is truthful, non-exploitative, and compliant with advertising regulations and not make false claims about outcomes, qualifications, or affiliation,” but this is directed at members and doesn’t support members in accessing CPD, tools and resources. Ethical bodies don’t support or intervene in the monitoring and sanctioning of CPD or resources - and is this their role? I would suggest that they consider the CPD that they personally promote and deliver. Oversight of CPD content is largely limited to advertising standards, placing the onus on practitioners to critically evaluate what they consume.
Practical Advice for Therapists
If you are considering training, CPD, webinars, podcasts or reading in all forms, how can you know if what you are consuming has value:
Check for peer-reviewed evidence.
Distinguish experiential from scientific evidence. Both have value, but the delivery and honesty are important.
How much of the theory is clinical metaphors vs biologically validated?
If applicable, check for endorsement by CPCAB / CPDSO. CPCAB is a counselling and psychotherapy awarding body. CPDSO are a CPD standards office. Although much good work exists outside of these frameworks.
Ask critical questions:
Who developed this tool?
What research supports it?
Who is selling this content? Are claims exaggerated or simplified for marketing?
An additional, and perhaps unexpected, point is to follow your gut. Or, as Ana more eloquently put it in her references, consider your common and critical sense. Polyvagal theory (along with others) always felt slightly off to me, but I squashed that feeling because everyone else seemed so keen. If instead I had run with that niggle and done some research, as Ana did, I would have felt on firmer ground far sooner.
Consider how you hold research and the ‘greats’ in mind personally and in your application. It seems that much has been developed in good faith, but when it has been discredited or built upon, those shifts and growths haven’t permeated the therapy community, especially if it contradicts the words of some of the greats. However, we can see both sides. Freud is a clear example; we recognise that his work is an important cornerstone, but that now some of it is outdated and problematic. That is ok. This is what learning is - constant development. We don’t spend enough time reflecting on these shifts and the fallout of historical beliefs and practices that have caused harm and created distrust. Take a moment to reflect on your perceptions of the roots of our practice and how they inform your work.
A personal note on practice
I’ll be honest: for much of my early practice, I took what served me and left the rest. But now, as I am asked for recommendations, I pause. I no longer rely on gut instinct alone. I check for peer-reviewed evidence, note where a model is experiential rather than empirically validated, and flag this clearly when I suggest it. This shift has altered how I read marketing copy, how I supervise, and how I recommend CPD and resources, which is why I’m writing this piece.
Call for Clarity
Counselling theories and models are no easier to assess than therapists themselves. People are complex and layered, so interventions and the relational aspect of therapy are also. While it is unlikely that we can fully and scientifically assess every aspect of therapy, training, or therapeutic tool - nor do I believe this is always necessary - clarity and transparency are essential. If an intervention has consistently worked in practice, that experiential evidence is valuable and should be stated honestly.
So don’t get me wrong, I don’t think every tool and strategy needs to be scientifically backed and proven in data. Sometimes, a focus on empirically proven work seems to have damaged the therapy world. We spent years in a love/hate relationship with the data-driven, measurable CBT, fighting for our qualitative, relational, person-centred and psychodynamic loves. However, claims of neuroscientific or scientific proof should always be backed by peer-reviewed research to maintain professional integrity.
Our language is important, and this is my personal goal. I have certainly been guilty of parroting the repeated tenets of therapy. We can share learning when we believe it to be beneficial experientially, but aim to drop the potentially problematic scientific language.
Giroux, Ahlers, and Miawotoe (2023) find a middle ground in their review of Polyvagal theory, highlighting that it may function more as a metaphorical/heuristic tool rather than a fully validated neurobiological model. For now, with my limited neuroscience knowledge, this feels like a comfortable place to rest.
In an ideal world, CPD and training would explore and teach us how to critically appraise scientific evidence, relational experience and clinical applicability, so we have confidence in the frameworks and tools we use daily in such important work.
🍃 Reflective moment: Take a moment to consider how you assess which CPD to pursue, what values you consider important, and ensure the words you use are truthful.
📎 Author Note & Transparency: I recommend resources based on a combination of clinical experience and consideration of available evidence.
I have published material in this area. Any suggestions below are offered for interest, not as endorsements of scientific efficacy. Please apply your own critical judgment.
If you’d like to support my work or are interested in learning more about working therapeutically with young people, you can:
📕Buy my book ☕ and/or Buy me a virtual toasted teacake or cuppa on Ko-fi 💛
You can also find my workshop at Online Events.
📚 References & Notes
Listed to support reflective discussion rather than imply full clinical endorsement.
Giroux, A., Ahlers, K., & Miawotoe, L. (2023). Reevaluating Polyvagal Theory: A metaphorical approach to therapeutic use. Journal of Psychotherapy Research, 12(3), 145–158.
Peer-reviewed. Suggests Polyvagal Theory holds metaphorical / heuristic value rather than confirmed neurobiological basis.
Tilson, D. F. (2024). Debunking Ableist Pseudoscientific Pop Psychology. Psychology & Society Perspectives. (Blog post / critical commentary).
Critical review of popular psychological assumptions, including widespread professional adoption without scrutiny.
Lund, A. (2024). Neuropsychotherapy: A practitioner’s exploration of science, hype, and clinical meaning. (Blog post / critical commentary).
Highlights challenges in translating neuroscience into therapeutic practice, advocating for both curiosity and rigour.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Evidence-based recommendations for psychological interventions.
Provides UK guidance favouring interventions with strong evidence bases (e.g., CBT), while noting limitations of alternative models.
Van der Kolk, B. (2014 / 2023 revised edition). The Body Keeps the Score. Penguin Group.
Highly influential in the therapy community. Widely used clinically but some claims are contested or considered scientifically overstated.
Freud, S. (1917 / 2001 edition). An Outline of Psychoanalysis.
Included as a historical reference. Recognised as seminal yet widely challenged and revised over time — an example of how theoretical evolution is integral to our field.
CPD Standards Office (CPDSO). (Current). Best Practice Framework for Professional Development.
Offers standards for structured CPD delivery but does not assess scientific validity of specific tools.
BACP (2018). Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions. 2025 draft now available for review.
Notes the importance of integrity in claims and advertising, though implementation relies on practitioner discernment.