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.
Research over several decades has identified significant problems with the progression model—the traditional approach to assessment and advancement of psychoanalytic candidates—including candidates' anxiety and uncertainty about the methods and fairness of their assessment, avoidance of conflictual issues with patients in order to keep cases, and reluctance to share their challenges with supervisors and advisors. In light of these findings, the Columbia Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research restructured its psychoanalytic training programs. The progression committee, the progression advisor role, candidate application to advance through the program, and routine committee discussion of candidates were eliminated and replaced by confidential mentorship and a clear and predictable system of trainee advancement. Analytic competency—a requirement for graduation—is now determined solely from detailed written feedback regarding the candidate's achievement of the Center's learning objectives. The number of months of supervised analysis required for graduation has been reduced, as has the required length of the candidate's longest case; in addition, three-times-weekly analyses are now accepted for credit. These changes are meant to increase the transparency, objectivity, and predictability of the training experience and reduce the pressure on clinical decision making and communication between trainees and faculty. An extensive evaluation of the impact of these innovations is currently under way.