In the assessment of suitability for low fee control analysis, various factors may interfere with successful referral, evaluation, and disposition. Variables within the referring analyst, patient, candidate, and supervisor are examined in their interaction with the circumstances of the assessment enterprise. Issues of competence, self-esteem, and oedipal rivalry, as well as guilt feelings, concerns about rejection, and other conflicts may be mobilized and may prevent a successful outcome. Clinical data from three assessment are presented and discussed. The concept of an assessment process, analogous to the psychoanalytic process, is proposed. In this process, manifestations of the patients intrapsychic life and indicators of potential transferences emerge in the context of the analysis of the patients reactions to the assessment. Potential sources of interference with the assessment process are identified, and measures to avoid them are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bachrach, H. & Leaff, L. (1978). Analyzability: a systematic review of the clinical and quantitative literature. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 26:881–920.
2.
Bak, R. (1970). Psychoanalysis today. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 18:3–23.
3.
DeBell, D. (1963). A critical digest of the literature on psychoanalytic supervision. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 11:546–575.
4.
Dewald, P. A. (1986). Learning Process in Psychoanalytic Supervision. New York: Int. Univ. Press.
5.
Diatkine, R. (1968). Indications and contraindications for psychoanalytic treatment. Int. J. Psychoanal., 49:266–270.
6.
Erle, J. B. & Goldberg, D. A. (1979). Problems in the assessment of analyzability. Psychoanal. Q., 48:48–84.
7.
Erle, J. B. (1984). Observations on assessment of analyzability by experienced analysts. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 32:715–737.
8.
Fleming, J., & Benedek, T. (1966). Psychoanalytic Supervision: A Method of Clinical Teaching. New York: Grune & Stratton.
9.
Freud, S. (1913). On beginning the treatment. S.E., 12.
10.
Friend, M. R. (1972). Psychoanalysis of adolescents. In Handbook of Child Psychoanalysis, ed. B. Wolman. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 330–331.
11.
Greenspan, S. I. & Cullander, C. C. H. (1973). A systematic metapsychological assessment of the personality—its application to the problem of analyzability. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 21:303–327.
12.
Halpert, E. (1981). Referral to psychoanalytic candidates: a special problem in technique. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 29:489–510.
13.
Huxter, H., Lower, R. & Escoll, P. (1975). Some pitfalls in the assessment of analyzability in a psychoanalytic clinic. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 23:90–106.
14.
Kantrowitz, J. L. (1987). Suitability for psychoanalysis: a followup study of 22 cases. Yearbook Psychoanal. Psychother., 2:403–415.
15.
Klein, H. (1960). A study of changes occurring in patients during and after psychoanalytic treatment. In Current Approaches to Psychoanalysis, ed. P. Hoch & J. Zubin. New York: Grune & Stratton, pp. 151–175.
16.
Knapp, P.; Levin, S.; McCarter, R.; Wermer, H. & Zetzel, E. (1960). Suitability for psychoanalysis: a review of one hundred supervised analytic cases. Psychoanal. Q., 29:459–477.
17.
Kuiper, P. (1968). Indications and contraindications for psychoanalytic treatment. Int. J. Psychoanal., 49:261–264.
18.
Lazar, N. (1976). Some problems in faculty selection of patients for supervised psychoanalysis. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 45:416–429.
19.
Limentani, A. (1972). The assessment of analyzability: a major hazard in selection for psychoanalysis. Int. J. Psychoanal., 53:351–362.
20.
Lorand, S. & Console, W. (1958). Therapeutic results in psychoanalytic treatment without fee. Int. J. Psychoanal., 39:59–65.
21.
Lower, R., Escoll, P. & Huxter, H. (1972). Bases for judgments of analyzability. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 20:610–621.
22.
Mayer, D. (1972). Comments on a blind spot in clinical research: a special form of transference in the psychoanalytic clinic. Psychoanal. Q., 41:384–401.
23.
Panel (1960). Criteria for analyzability. S. A. Guttman, reporter.J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 8:141–151.
24.
Sashin, J. I., Eldred, S. H. & van Amerongen, S. T. (1975). A search for predictive factors in institute supervised cases: a retrospective study of 183 cases from 1959–1966 at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute. Int. J. Psychoanal, 56:343–359.
25.
Tyson, R. & Sandler, J. (1971). Problems in the selection of patients for psychoanalysis: comments on the application of the concepts of “indications,” “suitability” and “analyzability.”Brit. J. Med. Psychol., 44:211–228.
26.
Waldhorn, H. (1960). Assessment of analyzability: technical and theoretical observations. Psychoanal. Q., 29:478–506.
27.
Waldhorn, H. (1967). Indications for psychoanalysis. In Kris Study Group, N. Y. Psychoanal. Inst. Monogr. 2, ed. E. Joseph. New York: Int. Univ. Press, pp. 3–51.
28.
Wallerstein, R. S. (1981). Becoming a Psychoanalyst: A Study of Psychoanalytic Supervision. New York: Int. Univ. Press.
29.
Windholz, E. (1970). The theory of supervision in psychoanalytic education. Int. J. Psychoanal., 51:393–406.
