The Annual of Psychoanalysis. X, 1982: An Introspective on Training and Non-Training Analysis. Victor Calef. Pp. 93-114.

Although the author had trepidations about proceeding with this work because it might be considered intrusive, he nevertheless decided that the results that might accrue were of sufficient interest to proceed. The study included sixteen psychiatrists, thirteen trainees, and fifty-four candidates who sought supervision. The letter that was used for this study is reproduced in the article. From the fifty-two letters sent out, thirty responses were received, some of them from Calef's former analysands. Calef states the reasons for his choices and also the reasons of those who did not wish to answer the letter. He writes that he was surprised by the number of positive responses, particularly those letters which suggested that his analysands got much more out of the work than he had thought. Excerpts from the responses of both candidates and non-candidates are included. A few of the many interesting observations are as follows. (1) There were many similarities between the psychiatrists without analytic training and the analytic candidates, and surprisingly few differences. (2) It is probably more useful to follow up analytic experiences with someone other than the analyst for a variety of reasons. This is counterbalanced by the analyst's obvious advantage in knowing more about the individual. (3) The most important reason for the high resistance to follow-up studies of analytic cases, Calef speculates, arises from our awareness of the number of unresolved transferences and our reluctance to be reminded of this. (4) "Self-analysis" is talked about as a necessary ingredient for a successful analysis. Calef states that a certain kind of transference has to be maintained to accomplish this, but this does not constitute an example of unresolved transference. (5) Additional aspects of the transference are discussed, e.g., the presence of the Pfeffer phenomenon and the revival of an analytic process.