A therapist may use AI to prepare a session plan, write a report, organize observations, or create home-program ideas. This can be very helpful, especially during a busy clinical day. AI can save time, reduce mental load, and give structure when the therapist feels tired or overwhelmed. But there is an important question we need to ask: when AI helps us think faster, are we still feeling confident in our own clinical reasoning?
A recent study published in the American Psychological Association’s journal Technology, Mind, and Behavior explored this concern. The study included 1,923 adult participants who used commercial AI tools to complete simulated work tasks. Many participants felt that AI “did most of the thinking,” especially in tasks that required planning, organizing, or sequencing. These participants also reported less confidence in their own independent reasoning and less sense that the ideas belonged to them.
For therapists, this finding is important because our work depends on much more than completing tasks. Speech-language therapists, occupational therapists, psychomotor therapists, psychologists, educators, and rehabilitation professionals all use clinical judgment every day. We observe the child or client, understand the context, listen to families, interpret behavior, and adapt our intervention. A session plan is not just a document. It is the result of careful thinking, experience, and human understanding.
AI can support this process, but it should not replace it. For example, AI may suggest communication goals for a child, but it cannot fully understand the child’s gestures, motivation, frustration, or relationship with the therapist. It may suggest sensory strategies, but it does not know how the child reacts in the room. It may help organize psychomotor activities, but it cannot feel the child’s movement, rhythm, hesitation, or body awareness. These clinical details still belong to the therapist.
The main concern is not using AI. The concern is using it passively. Passive use means accepting AI answers too quickly, without questioning them, adapting them, or comparing them with your own clinical observations. In the study, people who actively changed, challenged, or rejected AI suggestions felt more confident and had a stronger sense of ownership. This means AI may be safer and more useful when we use it as an assistant, not as the final decision-maker.
A helpful way to use AI is to think first, then ask AI. For example, before asking AI to write a therapy goal, the therapist can write a short idea independently: What is the main difficulty? What does the child need next? What have I already observed? After that, AI can help improve the wording, offer alternatives, or organize the idea more clearly. In this way, the therapist remains active in the thinking process.
This is especially important for students and early-career therapists. Clinical confidence grows through practice: observing, making hypotheses, trying interventions, reflecting, and receiving supervision. If young professionals depend too much on AI too early, they may produce good-looking reports but feel less sure about their own reasoning. Training programs should therefore teach not only how to use AI, but also how to question it, correct it, and remain responsible for clinical decisions.
There are also important limits to the current research. The study was correlational, which means it cannot prove that AI directly causes lower confidence. It also used simulated work tasks, not real therapy sessions with real clients and families. More research is needed in clinical settings. We need to understand how AI affects documentation, decision-making, supervision, learning, and client outcomes over time.
Ethically, therapists must remain responsible for their work, even when AI is used. AI should not receive private or identifying client information unless the system is secure and approved for that purpose. Therapists should also be transparent about how AI supports their work when needed. Most importantly, clinical decisions must be based on evidence, observation, professional judgment, and the client’s needs, not only on AI-generated suggestions.
The future of AI in therapy should not be based on fear, but on careful use. AI can be a valuable tool when it helps therapists think more clearly, save time, and explore different options. But it becomes risky when it makes professionals less engaged in their own reasoning. The goal is not to avoid AI completely. The goal is to use it in a way that protects professional confidence, clinical judgment, and the therapist’s sense of authorship.