The Certification Examination Committee (CEC) is fully aware of and very concerned about the problems involved in having an organization with both membership and accreditation aspects, the controversies about the relationship between certification and appointment of training analysts, and the serious difficulties in conceptualizing and carrying out a fair and informative certification exam in psychoanalysis. Much discussion and/or research is being conducted on all three levels.
As these larger and very complex issues are being sorted out, the current CEC is committed to improving certification and providing the best process possible. As Abraham Lincoln stated in his 1862 Annual Message to Congress, “We can succeed only by concert. It is not ‘can any of us imagine better?’ but, ‘can we all do better?’… Object whatsoever is possible, still the question recurs, ‘can we do better?’” (emphasis in original). The CEC has an evaluative function and, on several levels, educative aspects as well. The CEC continues to strive to improve in all areas. Above all, the CEC wants to help applicants succeed.
The CEC has an evaluative function and, on several levels, educative aspects as well. The CEC continues to strive to improve in all areas. Above all, the CEC wants to help applicants succeed.
The most comprehensive description of the purpose and procedures of the CEC can be found in the CEC's “Standards, Procedures and Guidelines.” This can be accessed online at the APsaA Web site or obtained in hard copy from the National Office. Of particular interest may be the description of the 11 so-called guidelines or psychoanalytic competencies and their subgroups used by the CEC to aid in evaluations. Initially, these emerged over the years during the CEC's research on validity; subsequently, many institutes have found them useful as they grapple with articulating various aspects of the psychoanalytic process in their educational programs.
Several additions and innovations have occurred over the past several years. Two in particular should be noted here. First, the Alternative Certification Process (ACP) has been established; in this pathway, the applicant chooses two evaluators from a national roster of analysts and presents cases to them over about a six-month period. Second, a mentor program has been started; this involves providing applicants with a mentor to help with the application process (pre-application mentor) or to aid them should their application be continued (continuation mentor).
Research is essential to the CEC, and the CEC has been actively involved in research on many levels. As noted above, studies of validity occurred over the past several years, with one result being the psychoanalytic competencies. This work, under the direction of the late Stuart Hauser, was conducted in collaboration with the CEC and a group of non-CEC scholars and clinicians. More recently, with the assistance of Isaac Galatzer-Levy, studies of inter-reliability have been performed, on both the 11 major groups and also the several subgroups. The inter-rater reliability correlations have been very high (p<.001). In addition, in 2009 the CEC began conducting exit interviews and written surveys. The exit interviews resulted in suggestions about CEC procedures specifically and ideas about psychoanalytic education in general; nearly all the interviewees commented spontaneously about how much they had learned in the process of writing up their cases. The exit survey was anonymous and comprised both specific questions as well as an open-ended section. Questions such as “Were the interviewers courteous, respectful, and collegial?” and “Were you satisfied with the interviewers' understanding of your cases?” were ranked on a negative-to-positive scale, and the applicants ranked these very positively; the applicants also had several excellent suggestions in the open-ended section.
With respect to future directions of the CEC, three issues stand out. First, research will continue in several areas, particularly on the interviews and inter-rater reliability. Second, the ACP will be assessed following its initiation in the spring of 2009; the number of applicants will be expanded if it proves effective. Third, the CEC will work with the Committee on Institutes (COI) to consider integrating certification with pre-graduate education. This would mean reconceptualizing certification and having a two-part or possibly three-part evaluation, with applicants able to take parts of the exam during their candidacy if they choose, much like the National Boards in medicine or the dissertation process in psychology. This process would also allow for more discussion and collaboration between local institutes and national committees on issues of curriculum and clinical standards. As always, your thoughts and ideas are encouraged and welcomed.
Editor's Note: The Board on Professional Standards invited the Certification Examination Committee to submit a column for this issue. The regular BOPS column will return in the next issue.