One of the responsibilities of the Committee on Certification is to recommend changes in procedure to the Board. Such recommendations arise from discussions within the Committee and from ongoing dialogue between the Board and the institutes. Currently, the Report of the Task Force to Study Certification has enriched the internal review conducted by the committee.
The debates leading to the 1977 bylaw establishing the Committee on Certification recognized its evolution from the predecessor Membership Committee. The method developed by that earlier committee to assess the qualifications of those applying for membership was stipulated as the method to be applied by the new committee: the review of treatment reports of the applicant's training cases. The purpose of this review was to determine whether the Board's training standards had been met; to wit, an applicant was required to demonstrate the ability to conduct the analysis of at least one female and one male patient, and to bring one treatment to a successful conclusion. (Certification in child and adolescent analysis, though subject to a somewhat different procedure, is based on the same premise and has certification in adult analysis as a prerequisite.)
Contrary to a widespread misunderstanding, the decision on an application was always based on the analyst's current ability and understanding. Since the reports requested were of the earliest and hence most problematic cases, conducted when the analyst's experience was minimal, the committee often could only infer that the applicant was able to initiate, conduct, and end a treatment. Even so, the committee was able to recommend a full half of all applicants for certification on their first try. The others were requested to submit additional information that would permit a view of their current work. Once this was done, most applicants achieved certification.
Unfortunately, however, the discrepancy between the stated goal of the certification process (to assure that training standards are met) and the actual criterion for certification (demonstrated ability to conduct an analysis) contributed to a growing discomfort with the certification process. This discomfort was often reflected in the demand for membership based on graduation from an institute rather than on certification. Many had come to believe that the Committee on Certification represented a conservative elite that had as its goal the promulgation of an orthodox view of psychoanalysis permitting no deviation from pure technique. Accusations of regional bias, gender discrimination, and rigidity were made against otherwise reasonable and respected colleagues on the committee. Neither expansion of the committee to represent a greater number of institutes nor the invitation of participant observers to its meetings did much to stem the tide of criticism. Other measures recommended and adopted to modify the procedures included a twenty-page limit on reports and a two-part process with an interview for those whose written application was deemed insufficient. Finally, however, there was little the committee could do to constructively engage critics whose concern was at bottom not about certification, but about membership.
Only recently has certification been removed as a requisite for membership. This has settled some aspects of the debate, while opening others at yet another gate—the one leading to full participation in the Association's affairs, as eligibility for training and analyst appointments, election to Association office, and service as a Fellow or Councilor is dependent on certification.
In February 1991, the Committee on Certification publicized a proposed change in procedure that has since been adopted by the Board: application no longer requires reports of all training cases, but only of three (or five, for certification in child and adolescent analysis). The cases are selected by the applicant to demonstrate the ability to initiate and conduct analysis of one female, one male, and one case through termination; none of these cases needs to have been supervised, though any or all may be. In this way, the process and its goal were made consistent: the review would be of the applicant's work, with little emphasis on assessing the training experience. In addition, the committee circulated information about all aspects of the process and for the first time published the standard that had in fact been used all along: the ability to conduct analyses. An important part of this effort was the distribution, in January 1992, of “Standards, Procedures, and Guidelines,” an expanded version of the committee's advice for the writing of treatment reports.
In April 1992, the Committee on Certification made new recommendations to the Board. The Committee now has experience with applications containing reports of recent cases selected for presentation by the applicant, rather than reports recapitulating the training experience, and it is clear that the necessary assessments can be made without considering the latter. The committee now asks the Board to approve discontinuance of the practices of (1) requesting letters from supervisors and institutes about the applicant's training experience, and (2) sending institutes copies of letters to applicants who have not been recommended for certification. It also recommends the requirement that applicants for certification be members of the Association. The latter requirement ensures that the Committee on Certification will not be involved in decisions that are the province of the Committee on Membership, and is consistent with the fact that privileges of certification accrue only to members of the Association. The former recommendation is intended to eliminate any appearance that the applicant's training is subjected to review, a practice which has in fact long since been abandoned.
These recommendations, which do not prevent applicants from seeking the assistance of their institutes, are meant only to recognize the applicant's right to privacy. The committee has recently implemented, on a trial basis, an innovation that makes consultation immediately available to those who have not been recommended for certification. Soon after the initial review, applicants are given the opportunity to speak by telephone with the principal reviewer and to discuss their applications in detail. Applicants who accept this offer are asked to participate in deciding how best to proceed. The initial experience with this practice is currently under review.
Recommendations presented for the committee's consideration include the anonymity of applications and the use of personal interviews with all applicants. The committee is not yet ready to make a recommendation regarding these suggestions, though gender anonymity would for many reasons seem an impossible goal. Interviews for all and anonymity are mutually exclusive. The Committee on Certification is committed to the examination of its work and to ongoing dialogue so that the Association may have the kind of certification it wants. It welcomes any questions or comments.
Arthur L. Rosenbaum, M.D., chairs the Committe on Certification.