Methods of Selection

Greenacre (1961) noted that selection inevitably occurred on the basis of future expectation and that it was therefore, by definition, problematic to expect any candidate to possess all the characteristics considered necessary to be a good therapist even if these were definable. The central question remained one of prediction concerning development and the explicit expectation was one of some level of disturbance in the candidate. Ekstein (1940, cited in Greenacre, 1961) suggested that a period of trial analysis be instituted as a method by which factors that may be masked in interview situations, such as a rigidity of defences in relation to narcissistic problems, which lessen analysability may be noted. Greenacre (1961) noted however, that it was unlikely that the question of motivation could be adequately addressed in a trial analysis given that such a focus could overly direct and distort the process of analysis itself.

However, the 1932 Congress did suggest that selection should be done by a committee rather than on the basis of individual recommendations given the recognition that training analysts themselves retain a degree of neuroticism and therefore inevitably

have blind spots, which need to be accounted for.

Bird (1968) noted that information about candidates often originates from four principle sources; an application form and references from others; a personal interview; the results of formal testing procedures; and a period of analysis. Klein et al (1965) examined letters of recommendation for training as a potential predictor of suitability and found that these were of some but limited value. Of the subgroup of applicants accepted for training on the basis of letters of recommendation (rated neutral to cautious'), three quarters failed to complete their training. Furthermore, none of this group were rated superior in their work'. However, none of those accepted for training on the basis of enthusiastic letters scored 'below average in their assessments during training. Bird (1968) considered the application form and references to be of highly limited value, their principal use being to set the selection process in motion. Kappelle (1996) noted that selection on the basis of suitability for courses in psychoanalytic theory and seminars would be highly unlikely to yield significant information given that the majority of applicants are university graduates and were therefore likely to be of sufficient intellectual functioning.

Both Bird (1968) and Klein et al (1965) stated that the individual, as opposed to group, personal interview remained the principal instrument of selection. In Klein’s study, selectors rated applicants suitability on a four-point scale. When matched with subsequent success in completing training, the ratings had a low but statistically significant predictive value. H. Klein et al were, however, clear about the limitations of their study which they described as; problems in the specification of desired personality qualities and the difficulty of finding an objective method of describing them, difficulties with the operationalisation of these qualities into psychological tests, and problems of creating specific independent criteria for the study. Bird (1968) noted that nearly all training institutions pinned their faith on the personal interview as this appeared reassuring. He considered all other measures to have a precursory or ancillary function to the interview although he noted that styles of interviewing could vary greatly between interviewers. It was common for an applicant to have a number of individual interviews with different interviewers each of whom may have a

different style of interviewing. One style consisted of the evaluation interview being conducted as per a psychiatric assessment, with a formal structure to the interview and a diagnosis proffered at the end. Bird stated that whilst this method was at some odds with the psychoanalytic method generally, it has produced some “highly perceptive analytic comments about the applicant's suitability” (p523). By contrast was the casual and non-directive style in which the course of the interview was directed by whatever the applicant brought to it. This style was closer to the practice of analysis resulting in the interviewer experiencing a sample of the applicants mind in action. At some point in-between the above two styles, lay the probing ‘active data finding’ style aimed at uncovering hidden material. In discussing this style, and in the absence of specific evidence. Bird (1968) once more favourably concluded that those who use this style often arrived at a “remarkably thorough analytic picture of the applicant's neurosis” (p523), out of which they then formulated opinions about his analysability and his potential talent as therapist.

A variant of the active probing style was the ‘prod and probe style’ in which the aim is not so much to uncover hidden material but to understand why the material has to be kept a secret and to observe the applicants response to being probed. Understandably, this approach produced stressftil interviews in whidi both adaptive and maladaptive aspects of the applicants ego-ftinctioning were illustrated. Bird (1968) considered this style as potentially allowing the interviewer to make ‘amazingly sharp’ formulations concerning the applicants potential for analytic work.

Formal psychometric assessments for suitability are virtually absent from the available literature. Bird (1968) considered their use as one of ascertaining psychopathology rather than identifying potential analytic talent, and they were therefore made redundant by the process of interviewing. Others were more optimistic such as Kohut (1968) stating that,

“The question whether quantifying devices should be used in such areas of applied psychoanalytic research as that concerning evaluation is a crucial one. In brief, the gain in precision must be weighed against the loss in meaning and significance. 1 am

inclined to believe that at the present time quantification is not achievable without an excessive loss in psychoanalytic relevance - yet I do not know what the future might bring and I am not opposed to experimentation” (p551).

Kappelle (1996) noted that there had been little progress since that time. Furthermore, Bird (1968) considered analysis as the only guaranteed method of evaluating analysability and potential therapeutic talent. Consequently, he stated that most training institutes required at least one year in analysis prior to further evaluations and a final evaluation as to whether an individual might begin the training. Bird (1968) concisely described the simplicity and yet complexity of the process of selection and in doing so enphasised the relational aspects of selection,

“Sooner or later in the evaluation process, regardless of what has gone on before, every applicant come up against the real test. He meets a living analyst face to face, mind to mind, in a closed-door, this-is-it encounter. This is what he has been waiting for, and this is what the analyst has been waiting for. All the rest is prologue. Now the applicant sits before the analyst, his mind as open as he dares, and the analyst, as m udi as he is able, tries to find out how his mind works. Then, from what he discovers, he tries to decide whether this is the mind of a future analyst” (p522).

Whilst the focus on the personal interview and possible period of initial analysis were favoured, Namnum (1980) noted that suitability for therapeutic work was sometimes assessed by the sheer ability to complete the training. Namuum (1980) reported the different percentages of acceptance and drop-outs from training available both across time and between different institutes in the USA. He reported an overall increase in acceptance rates over time with 35-40 percent of applicants being accepted in 1960 and this increasing to 60 percent by 1971-72. However, Namnum (1980) also noted that some institutes had adopted an 'easy-in easy-out' approach and thereby experienced an acceptance rate of approximately 80% alongside a dropout rate of 50%. Pollock (1976) emphasised the need for follow up procedures to assess applicants’ success and failures which may then be retrospectively considered

alongside the records of the applicant’s initial application. No such studies were located at the time of writing.

Kappelle (1996) concluded that the current situation was one of selection for psychoanalytic training involved selection without a clear description of the concept of a 'good analyst' and without the possibility of evaluating the selection process.