M. Jacoby, Zollikon

The Main Topic, ‘How do I assess progress in supervision?’ seems to me to contain two different questions: namely, how do I assess at all what is going on in an analysis conducted by a trainee; and, what do I understand by ‘progress’?

With regard to the first question: even if it were possible to obtain a verbatim account of what has taken place in a session between the trainee and his patient, I am still not sure whether I could assess the situation in all

its facets. Is the tone of the candidate's voice, and are his accompanying gestures, the same while he is with me as they were in the actual analytic situation? (The decisive effect of such non-verbal communications is well-known.) The trainee reporting on his work during supervision finds himself in a different field of communication, in a different feeling-climate, coloured by whatever transference emotions may be constellated. Once I know a candidate well I can probably distinguish between his report and what may really have happened between him and his patient. Theoretically speaking, the most accurate description of an analytic session is that of a videotape; but in reality the intimacy and spontaneity of interactions are often spoiled by stage-fright and play-acting. So far no trainee has brought me videotapes, though some have wanted me to listen to ordinary tapes of their sessions. An occasional hearing of these tapes has helped me to get a better picture of what had taken place in the hour on which the trainee had merely reported, because I then heard the patient's voice with his specific ways of expression, together with the candidate's interventions, less contaminated by the (mutual) influence of our own encounter. Thus an awareness of whether, and in what way, a transference-countertransference situation between trainee and supervisor may distort the assessment of what is really going on in the supervised analysis seems to me of prime importance. Occasionally it would seem necessary to discuss certai