Special Report of the Committee on the Revision of Standards

At the Midwinter Meetings of the American Psychoanalytic Association held in New York, Dr. Ernest E. Hadley, Chairman of the Committee on the Revision of Standards, presented an interesting report whose importance leads us to publish it in full.

Dr. Hadley's report follows:

“Your Standing Committee on the Revision of Standards observes that Minimum Standards as accepted are not necessarily gratifying to the extremes. In this respect they neither represent the minimum nor the maximum, but the average of acceptability.

Upon the acceptance of the present skeleton Standards in December 1948, it had been the understanding that a trial period for their utilization in practice would provide some broad measure of their suitability and eventually suggest definitive revisions for guides into the future.

Rather than attempt striking over-all changes which might upset the curriculum and practices or occasion hardships, the first modifications or revisions would most likely occur at points of greatest conflict.

Such a point of conflict has arisen over the “hours question” as it applies both to the physician in his personal analytic training and to the analysis of the patient which the student is conducting under supervision.

Your Committee further observes that on these same questions prior to the December 1948 meeting, there were rumors of division from both extremes. The final compromise, lessening tension at that time, was embraced in the formulation which appeared in the 1948 Approved Standards.

As the Membership Committee began to operate on the question of student qualifications, delays and difficulties in their processing aroused questions regarding the criteria being used as a yardstick and the criteria being exercised in practice.

Originally it was presumed that questions affecting Standards would be referred to the Standing Committee on the Revision of Standards for their further study in operation before