Meeting of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

October 26, 1982. OBSERVATIONS ON ASSESSMENT OF ANALYZABILITY BY EXPERIENCED ANALYSTS: REPORT OF 160 CASES. Joan B. Erle, M.D. and Daniel A. Goldberg, M.D.

The authors delineated five problem areas in the assessment of analyzability that had become clear in their previous work on this subject: 1) the need for consistent definition of terms; 2) the difficulty in developing valid criteria for patient selection; 3) the assumption that prediction of analyzability can be reliably made at the outset of treatment; 4) the failure to differentiate between analyzability and therapeutic benefit; and 5) the need for prospective studies. In preparation for such a study, Drs. Erle and Goldberg undertook a retrospective pilot study of how experienced analysts assess analyzability and how they judge the course and conclusion of treatment in terms of their explicit or implicit prediction of analyzability at the beginning of analysis. The authors hoped to enlist a group of experienced analysts who could provide a body of data over a period of years. The selection of private cases would minimize some of the problems of Treatment Center studies (e.g., supervision, inexperienced analysts).

The authors invited 33 analysts (all of whom were more than five years past graduation from the Institute) to participate in their study. These analysts were thought to have primarily an analytic practice. Ultimately, 16 became participants in the study. These analysts reported on 160 cases in analysis during a five-year period (1973-1977). 39% of the patients were male and 61% female; 18% were physicians and 16% students. 38% were seen 5 times a week, and 62% were seen 4 times a week. There were 19 additional patients seen 3 times a week who were not included in the series because the authors felt the treatment was less intensive; the cases were also atypical in other respects as well. All sessions were 50 minutes in length. By the end of the study, 61% of the patients had ended their tr