You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The New Center for Psychoanalysis was formed by the merger of the Los Angeles Psychoanalytic Society and Institute and the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute/Society in August 2005. The psychoanalytic practice patterns and career paths of its members who are graduates of psychoanalytic training programs have never been empirically studied. In April 2006, we sent the Postgraduate Analytic Practice Survey questionnaire of Cherry et al. (2004) to all members who had graduated from a psychoanalytic training program from 1952 through 2005. This poster compares a subset of this cohort, analysts at the New Center who graduated during the period 1987-2001, with a cohort previously studied from the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research.
The response rates for the New Center and Columbia were 40% (33/83) and 67% (68/102), respectively. Both institutes have the same percentage of female analysts (53%). The number of hours analysts saw private patients per week was roughly equal (New Center 32 [SD =18], Columbia 30 [SD = 11]); 18% (6/33) of New Center analysts had another job in addition to private practice, compared to 38% (26/68) at Columbia. The cohorts were further divided into three categories: noncertified, non-training analyst (GA), certified, non-training analyst (CA), and certified, training analyst appointed (TA). The New Center had 83% (25/30) GA, Columbia 78% (53/68). Both institutes had 10% TA. Columbia had a larger group of CA (8/68, 12%) compared to the New Center (2/30, 7%.). The mean number of patients in each treatment frequency category—twice weekly, three times weekly, and four times weekly—was similar between the two programs. The proportion of analysts with at least one patient in each treatment frequency category was also similar. The New Center analysts started more new three-times-a-week treatments postgraduation (6 [SD = 18.4]) than the Columbia analysts (1 [SD = 1.6]), but this finding was due largely to statisti