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.
Assessment is a very important part of an analyst's work, and this book is a welcome addition to the small amount written on the subject. I will concentrate on the five chapters concerned with assessing patients for individual psychotherapy and analysis.
The descriptions of patient assessments have much in common, while the differences throw an interesting light on varying styles. Shortly after I became Assistant Director of the C. G. Jung Clinic, London, a colleague familiar with my way of working remarked on how I would use my intuitive and feeling functions during an assessment interview. She commented that an assessor whose dominant function was sensation would work differently, perhaps by picking up visual movements which were very significant, and which I would probably not notice. The two approaches are equally valid.
The pressure imposed by making regular decisions on the suitability of a patient for analysis by a trainee are considerable, and require a judgement function that is satisfactorily developed. The clinicians writing here are in this position, and their methods may not suit a reader with a strong perception function. I found it easy to take in the descriptions that matched my developed strengths, but it was important also to understand material which incorporated my less developed functions.
In the opening paper Digby Tantam writes a scholarly account of assessment. He makes use of published evaluations wherever possible, although the availability of relevant source material is limited. Many of the gaps have to be filled with clinical impressions; this leads to a wide range of different conclusions. He uses as the basis for the sections of his chapter Walberg's list of the eleven primary goals of the first psychotherapeutic interview.
Jeremy Holmes follows with a lively and readable description of how he conducts an assessment: ‘The dual function—objective and subjective, a view for the analyst of the patient, and for the patient of the analyst,’ he w