BOPS Task Force on Certification Submits Report

The Task Force on Certification was formed as an ad hoc task force of the Board charged with surveying experiences with, attitudes toward, and suggestions about the certification process in all affiliate societies and institutes. Morris Peltz and Dan Buie were co-chairs, while Sander Abend, Allen Rosenblatt, Ralph Roughton, and Jorge Schneider were responsible for the collection of information in each of four regions. Cynthia Stevens conducted a questionnaire survey of candidates, Arthur Rosenbaum provided guidance, perspective, and responses to the data from his position as Chair of the Committee on Certification, and Lawrence Chalfin, Jacob Jacobson, Irwin Solomon, and Martin Stein served as consultants. The regional coordinators found one member in each society who was willing to organize a local survey, oversee its execution, and compile the results. By design, these local representatives were not to be chairs of education committees or directors or presidents, but were to be educators committed to the principle of certification. The regional coordinators collected the reports of their local representatives and drew up a summary of each, sending both the original reports and the summaries, along with other treatments of the data, such as tabulation of results, to the co-chairs, who in turn compiled these materials, along with summary statements and tables of their own making, to yield a document of 103 pages.

The regional coordinators and local representatives were given wide latitude in collecting data; it could be accomplished through written questionnaires, telephone or in-person interviews with individuals, or small group interviews. Attempts were made to represent all the different views held by members of societies and institutes, and a variety of groups were surveyed: certified and noncertified analysts, faculty members, recent graduates, training analysts, and candidates.

Members of 28 of 29 societies/institutes participated. Total respondents numbered 771, not including the separate polling of candidates in 20 institutes by Dr. Stevens. Forty-seven percent of respondents were certified, 22% being training analysts and 25% non-training. Thirty-six percent of respondents were not certified; 17% were candidates.

Results of the Survey

A very impressive finding was the lack of knowledge and understanding of the certification process, including recent improvements. This was true not only for candidates and noncertified graduates, but also for certified graduates and training analysts. Thus, much latitude is left for misunderstanding, misinformation, distrust, and anger. This points to the vital need for improvement in communications between the Board and its Committee on Certification and the affiliate institutes and societies.

Responses gathered by the survey can be organized into three categories: (1) satisfaction with the certification process as it is now conducted, (2) agreement with the current principles of certification but some dissatisfaction with the process, and (3) opposition to the certification process on principle. A significant portion of each group surveyed—that is, training analysts, certified non-training analysts, noncertified analysts, and candidates—held opinions and views that fall into each of the three categories.

As may be seen in the table above, in each of the four categories of respondent approximately two-thirds expressed agreement with the current principles of certification but some dissatisfaction with the process. Noncertified analysts expressed the greatest opposition on principle (31%), as against less than half that figure for respondents in the other groups. As regards satisfaction with the current process of certification, the percentage of training analysts expressing this position (25%) was notably greater than figures for the other groups, which ranged from 7% to 17%.

Those expressing satisfaction with the current procedure feel that it serves well to maintain standards of training and practice and is necessary to the integrity of psychoanalysis, despite difficulties that inevitably arise. This group is positive about the recent improvements.

Those expressing some dissatisfaction believe that further improvements are needed. Various suggestions were offered. The most frequent one was that the interview become a regular part of the certification process. Reasons given included the helpfulness of the interviews both in improving the evaluative process and in providing the applicant a more positive and personal educational experience, one which tends to promote a sense of belonging at a collegial level to a group of professionally mature psychoanalysts.

In this group a large number of respondents expressed the wish that the certification process would serve more effectively as an educational-developmental experience. They wish that help in preparing case reports could be given at local and national levels in the form of seminars, tutorials, workshops, case illustration manuals, and individual consultations. These respondents emphasized the importance of receiving good feedback from the committee to the applicants, both to those who pass and to those who do not.

As to the level of competence to be assessed by the certification process, about half the respondents who addressed the question favored minimal competence; the other half favored more advanced levels, though not so advanced as to apply only to qualification for training analyst appointment.

Respondents in a number of societies/institutes strongly believe that the certification process should be conducted anonymously, as to the identity of both applicant and institute. Reasons given relate to the concern, even the belief, that in at least some instances political or ideological differences with applicants or their institutes influence the assessment.

In the third category of response, those expressing more thoroughgoing opposition to the certification process, the sense of mistrust of the committee and anger with its requirements reaches quite serious levels. At the extreme there is a belief that the committee misuses its power, and that applicants are used to discredit and pressure certain institutes. Respondents in a few societies/institutes consider the certification process to be unfair, arbitrary, overly arduous, mysterious, anxiety-provoking, and inadequate in the assessment it attempts to make. Many feel that the certification process is conducted in such a way as to demean and humiliate applicants, and that they cannot be honest about their analytic work because the committee holds rigid views about what constitutes appropriate analysis. Some respondents believe that only the local institute knows the applicant well enough to assess his or her competence adequately.

Some respondents recommend that if oral interviews are given, they should be conducted by an interviewer selected from analysts in each locale and held there.

The polling of candidates conducted by Dr. Stevens indicated that one-third of respondents consider certification to be an unnecessary exercise that is daunting, mysterious, and superfluous. Two-thirds believe that certification is useful, integrating, consolidating of identity as an analyst, and a means of gaining credentials in the world at large and with one's peers. However, a considerable number believe certification is made difficult and arbitrary by the committee's unspoken adherence to “classical Freudian orthodoxy.” These candidates believe that the applicant's curriculum vitae may reveal that he or she was trained at an institute or by a training analyst not enjoying the committee's approval.

The report of the Task Force consists of a summary and eight appendices, in all totaling 189 pages. Some of this material is summarized below.

Evolution of the Certification Process

In his report, Irwin Solomon stated that the function of the Committee on Certification is to ascertain in each case whether the basic minimal standards set by the Board have been met. He traced the evolution of the certification procedure and attributed it to ongoing self-evaluation by the committee. The need for answers to questions arising in the reviewing of case reports led to institution of the two-part examination, part two being an oral interview, with questions transmitted to the applicant in advance, that could be waived if deemed unnecessary.

Over time the committee's interest shifted from the training experience to the applicant's current state of development as an analyst. This first took the form of a focus on the applicant's present thinking about supervised cases, then shifted even further to the presentation of current cases.

The committee also began to include two, then three observers from different institutes, rotated alphabetically, who eventually served as full participants in the committee's work.

Dr. Solomon enumerated the basic elements of psychoanalytic practice evaluated by the committee. He noted a consensus among committee members on this matter but raised the question whether this consensus still exists. If not, he stressed, it is important that the Board address this as a matter of priority.

Arthur Rosenbaum: Views and Recommendations

Arthur Rosenbaum addressed the current purpose and methods of certification and some misunderstandings about them. He made the point that the Committee on Certification has always examined the applicant's current analytic understanding and work. However, confusion has arisen because the committee, although actually reviewing the applicant's current ability to work as an analyst, did so by looking at reports from the training experience. Misperceptions and dissension have followed this confusion. The confusion was increased when in 1977 certification was made gatekeeper to membership; this led to the misperception that the committee addressed the question of whether graduation was a satisfactory basis for membership. In fact, the committee has never addressed this question.

The committee's purpose has always been the assessment of whether an applicant meets minimal standards in the current practice of psychoanalysis. But because assessments were based on a review of analyses of control cases, which are the most problematic treatments the applicants are likely ever to conduct, the committee began suggesting that reports of recent work be submitted as well. However, few applicants offered to do so. At the present time the committee requires reports on only three cases, supervised or unsupervised, and these are selected by the applicant to best demonstrate his or her analytic ability.

Dr. Rosenbaum noted a need to define the separate and distinct tasks of institutes and the Committee on Certification. In particular, it must be made clear that the committee is not reviewing standards of training, but rather is focusing on the demonstration that minimal standards of individual competence are being met.

Other Views

The following is a markedly condensed account of the views of Task Force consultants and regional coordinators. The survey showed wide support for the principle of certification but also wide dissatisfaction, some quite marked, with the current process of certification. Many expressing dissatisfaction offered suggestions for improvement. Also strikingly clear is the need for improved communication between the committee, the Board, and affiliate societies and institutes.

Opportunities to diminish local biases and dissatisfactions arise in the evolution toward the evaluation of current work and the confidential nature of interactions between the applicant and the committee. The report, however, does not adequately address the role of local institutes and societies in creating attitudes, both positive and negative, toward the certification process in their graduates. However, on the part of the committee and the Board, there is a need for concerted efforts to overcome local antagonisms and misperceptions. The process must be as free as possible from either the actuality or the appearance of caprice and bias. To this end, suggestions such as blind evaluations might be implemented in order to gain the confidence and support of societies and institutes, and to encourage potential applicants.

Much can be done to improve the certification process without sacrificing standards. Making the process more collegial and congenial, for all concerned, would constitute one such improvement. Personal interviews should be a regular part of the process, conducted on a regional basis with current and past members of the committee serving as interviewers. This could afford the opportunity for a more complete, fair, and reliable assessment, one in which all applicants are treated equally. The interviews would offer immediate answers to questions raised in the review of written reports, and could provide balance for applicants who are not very good at conveying their work in writing. When the interview is scheduled immediately following the review of written reports, many of the problems and dissatisfactions that arise from being deferred could be avoided. The degree of competence assessed should be above the minimal, but not at the level required for appointment as a training analyst. Achievement of certification should indicate that the applicant has met a national standard of analytic competence. The evaluation of individuals should be accomplished without recourse to training records or concerns about the institute of training.

The certification process should be a useful educational experience and developmental step. As such, active help and encouragement should be made available to applicants.

The Committee on Certification should be expanded so that representatives from every affiliate institute actively participate (1) in deliberating and arriving at the standards by which applications are to be assessed and (2) in doing the work of assessing individual applicants. Such inclusive representation would help to keep local societies and institutes more accurately informed about the certification process.

Criteria for certification should include an awareness of current competing theoretical paradigms, their consideration in devising alternative formulations of a case, and an explanation of why one is chosen instead of the others. It would also be useful to include some discussion of therapeutic mistakes and failures.

The Task Force and the Stein Committee

The data and suggestions collected by the Ad Hoc Committee on Membership and Organization (“The Stein Committee”) were very similar in content to those gathered by the Task Force. The similarities in the two reports reinforce the validity of each. The Stein Committee reported views that fit all three categories of response: satisfaction with the current process, dissatisfaction with aspects of it, and thoroughgoing disagreement.

Suggestions for improvement included (1) more complete information about requirements and criteria; (2) increased cooperaton between the Committee on Certification, the institutes, and individual applicants; (3) more specific and prompt feedback to applicants about problems, including suggested remedies; (4) more collegial relations between the committee and the applicants; (5) provision of a more educative function in the process of applying and being assessed; and (6) the conduct of assessments regionally, at times other than the semiannual meetings.

Among the recommendations of the Stein Committee were the following: (1) establishment of a single-phase certification process involving the review of case reports followed by an interview; (2) conduct of interviews in an educational and consultative atmosphere in which applicants feel the interviewers help them demonstrate their psychoanalytic understanding and competence; (3) interviews held regionally, at times other than the meetings of The American; and (4) a larger Committee on Certification, either through naming more full-time members or through ad hoc appointments, to allow for the greater effort required for these improvements.