I appreciate Schachter's commendation of the Committee on Certification for making its procedures user-friendly (TAP 30/3, p. 23). My term as chair of the committee has ended, but I must comment on Schachter's understanding of the accomplishments.
Linking changes in the application procedures to the percentage of those certified following initial review of the applications, Schachter wants to discover if friendlier procedures change the number who continue. Confusing the procedure for application with the committee's review of the applications, he thinks friendlier procedures should change the number certified. The method by which the committee reviews applications is the study of treatment reports to determine the applicant's ability to conduct analysis. It is this study which determines the committee's decision, not the application procedure.
Approximately half of all applicants are unable to convey in writing the process of the clinical work they report, yet virtually all who continue (no reapplication is required) with the application beyond the initial review eventually are certified.
The committee has explained these phenomena as follows: Psychoanalysis has failed to develop a method to record the data of our field, thus impeding research, communication, and education. If the certification experience can be generalized, analysts have had to derive their own methods for reporting data, and only half of them do so. The committee has begun to propose remedies to address this oversight.
Procedural changes have resulted in applications with fewer but more informative reports. However, the number of successful applications upon initial review will not change appreciably until institutes teach a method of recording the process of a treatment. The Committee on Certification has demonstrated that such a method can be taught and learned.
Whether or not the committee under the leadership of its current chair, Myron Hurwitz, will conduct the study suggested by Schachter, it is already evident that hurt and anger have been reduced. A follow-up study of those continuing the application process will not reveal what Schachter wants to know. Friendly procedures cannot hide alienation that results when half of the graduates of institutes are unprepared to take the certification test. Furor surrounding the practices of the Committee on Certification has obscured the alienation of graduates who never apply.
TAP titled Joseph Schachter's letter about the Certification Committee “Certification: User-lacking.” This title was inaccurate and we apologize for any confusion. Please see Arthur Rosenbaum's article in this issue of TAP detailing the work of the committee in reducing obstacles to certification while maintaining standards.
Editor
Arthur L. Rosenbaum