Standards Appendices


Appendix I. Traditional Direct Model

1. The analyst applying for appointment for Training Analyst, Supervising Analyst, and Training and Supervising Analyst by means of the Traditional Direct Model has satisfied the following criteria in addition to those listed in items 1 through 8 in the above section I.A.; and for Supervising Analyst alone, those criteria listed in section I.A and III.

a. The analyst has successfully completed a vetting process which must include the review of presentations of detailed past and current clinical and supervisory work to a Training Analyst Selection Committee or its equivalent at the institute seeking the appointment. At the discretion of the institute, the analysts chosen to review the applicant’s work can be from inside or external to the institute, or both. The institute’s procedures for this vetting process must have been approved by the Board of Directors of AAPE.

b. Once these criteria have been met, the institute sends its written application to the Training and Supervising Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) of AAPE for review.

c. With successful review by the TSAC, the application is brought to AAPE’s Board of Directors for formal approval of the appointment.

d. The institute will be informed about the approval or non-approval of the application and provided with feedback in the latter case. At its discretion, the institute is free to reapply for the applicant, without prejudice.

e. Institutes should have a clearly written, transparent appeals process for training and supervising analyst appointment.

Back to Appendices


Appendix II. Developmental Model A

The analyst applying for appointment by means of Developmental Model A has satisfied the following criteria in addition to those listed in items 1 through 8 in section I.A. above.

What follows is written in the style of the Institute that uses this model.

Any applicant who is close to but does not fully meet immersion requirements is encouraged to consider beginning the Training and Supervising Analyst (TSA) application process. Either the applicant or the institute’s TSA Appointment committee chair may contact the Chairperson of AAPE’s Training and Supervising Application and Development Committee (TSAC) to discuss individual cases.
THE FOUR STAGES OF TSA DEVELOPMENT AND APPOINTMENT

Within the framework of AAPE standards, the process takes place in four stages.

The institute’s TSA Committee Chair or his or her designee oversees the application process from beginning to end: He or she oversees the training groups, reviews the preliminary application as well as available data on the applicant’s academic performance as a candidate and functioning as a faculty member and general member of our community.

I. TA/SA DEVELOPMENT TRAINING GROUPS (TG), (One or two years required):

The applicant will participate for (one or two) years in the Training and Supervising Analyst Development Training Groups (TG’s).

These training groups are non-reporting, led by two experienced TA/SA’s, with no more than six participants. Training groups are open to all faculty members who are three years post-graduation, but with particular interest in exploring potential development toward becoming a training and supervising analyst. Participants are expected to have completed or expect to complete Certification and to complete Immersion Requirements for TSA appointment.

Within each training group, presenters may rotate, but each TSA applicant is encouraged to present for at least three of the meetings. Supervisory cases will also be encouraged for presentation. A portion of each training group may also involve discussion of relevant readings on the training analysis literature and supervision literature that are determined by the Training Group leaders.

Attendance can begin to accrue toward the one or two-year TG requirement well before a TSA application is made. For TSA application, the full (one or two) years of attendance in the training group will need to be completed before consideration for appointment.

II. PRELIMINARY APPLICATION

Applicants having completed Certification, and meeting Immersion Requirements or are expected to complete Immersion Requirements at or beyond five years post-graduation may submit a preliminary application to the institute’s TSA Committee Chair.

An applicant may submit the preliminary application as early as four years post-graduation, in order to begin the next phase of the development process to potentially qualify for TSA appointment after five years required experience of post-graduate psychoanalytic practice.

The applicant submits AAPE’s Training Analyst Application Formto the TSA Chair, and a letter of intent to the TSA Chair expressing interest in beginning the Individual Development Committee (IDC) phase of the TSA Developmental Process.
The Chair or his or her designee verifies the applicant’s statement that he or she is a member in good standing with regard to the ethical and financial standards of the institute and those of the AAPE. The Chair or his or her designee may summarize the data collected for purposes of aiding the development of the applicant, and will use this summary to help the Chair of the Individual Developmental Subcommittee (IDC) to locate potential areas for growth in the TSA Development Experience (see below).

The TSA Chair or his or her designee may move to reject the application at this juncture on the grounds of ineligibility based on eligibility criteria, lack of requisite experience, or ethical breaches in the conduct of clinical work that would adversely affect the conduct of an analysis or supervision. Barring this occurrence, the applicant will automatically begin a period of at least one additional year of a TSA developmental process.

The TSA Chair or his or her designee will appoint an Individual Development Committee (IDC) consisting of three TA/SA’s for the individual applicant’s next phase of the process

If the applicant would like an advisor, Training and Supervising Analysts who are not directly involved in the applicant’s appointment process would also be made available.

III. INDIVIDUAL TA/SA DEVELOPMENTAL EXPERIENCE

Each Applicant continuing to this phase will be assigned an Individual Development Committee (IDC). The IDC is comprised of 3 Training and Supervising Analysts, (a chair and two others) appointed by the TSA Chair or his or her designee. The IDC is charged with the task of establishing a Training and Supervising Analyst Developmental Experience for a particular applicant.

During the second academic-year of the development period, each applicant attends meetings every four months for at least one year (at least three meetings) with the Training and Supervising Analyst Development Subcommittee (IDC) to discuss progression. All applicants will join an IDC either concurrently with their participation in the TG experience or after their one or two year participation in a TG.

Attendance and participation in IDC meetings are part of the institute’s required criteria for TSA Appointment. For each meeting, the applicant is required to compose a brief note (one to two pages) summarizing the kinds of clinical problems and issues that the applicant is working on in analytic work and supervision.

The IDC’s responsibility will be to help the applicant’s development in his or her development towards Training and Supervising Analyst appointment.The IDC will take up clinical material from the applicant’s analyses and supervisions (and share their own clinical experiences to the extent that they are able). The purpose of the IDC is to discuss and evaluate the applicant’s clinical work. It is essential that the subcommittee work with the applicant to identify areas of relative strength and weakness in the applicant’s work. Over the course of this year, our hope is that the applicant in concert with his or her committee will develop an ongoing conversation about some of the most challenging parts of analytic work for the applicant.

A crucial component of the IDC’s contribution to the applicant’s development will rely on the applicant’s continuing writing about his own strengths and weaknesses in relation to his or her work as an analyst. We encourage applicants to think about particular kinds of problems in clinical work such as avoidance of conflict or affects; under what circumstances is the analyst’s mind more free to think or more constrained; issues that are more likely to be enacted than others; particular kinds of transference attributions that pose conflict for the analyst; particularly thorny countertransference issues with which the analyst struggles, and the like. The IDC will not only work to help the analyst to work with these kinds of conflicts and interferences in clinical work but, equally important, will work to help the analyst to reflect on these matters as an ongoing part of analytic work. Toward this end, a brief one or two page summary before each meeting with the DS will be required.

It is important that in preparation for each meeting the applicant will also provide in writing his or her sense of the feedback that has been provided in the previous IDC meeting. This is required so that the IDC members can assess the progress of discussions within those meetings including the degree to which feedback is being received and digested.

The applicant will need to send this along to the IDC members at least two weeks in advance of the each of the three [or more] meetings during this process, to give the IDC members time to give feedback before the meeting if what is submitted needs work, development, or could be clearer.

The members of this subcommittee will try to provide direct and constructive observations including concerns or criticisms of the applicant’s work.

It is an important part of the process that prior to meeting with the applicant, that the Subcommittee take the time between each meeting to discuss the applicant’s development, and to formulate goals for the next meeting to insure the applicant’s analytic growth over the span of their meetings. The Subcommittee takes on the responsibility of helping the applicant to develop their abilities to conduct training analyses and supervise candidates on their analytic cases. It is also possible for this committee to suggest to applicants areas of further development that would be useful.

The IDC will not generate a written report to the TAC about the applicant’s development process, but will be asked to document times and dates of meetings as part of the Final Appointment Procedure. The applicants, themselves, are to submit a written description of their TG and IDC experience to the TSA Chair at the completion of the IDC experience, so that a detailed letter might be written to AAPE on their behalf in the final stages of TSA appointment. We expect that in the letter, the applicant will be able to articulate aspects of his/her learning and development during the appointment process (see note below). To this end, the IDC and/or Subcommittee Chair would be available to review and discuss the process. The applicant is expected to review the letter with his or her subcommittee before submission to the TSA Chair.

IV. FINAL APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE

At the conclusion of the Training and Supervision Analyst Development Experience, when the applicant and TSA Committee agree the process has been fulfilled, the applicant will gather the following materials to submit to the TSA Chair:

  1. The AAPE Training and Supervising Analyst Application, updated to reflect the applicant’s most recent clinical immersion.
  1. A statement written by the applicant which lists dates and times of all meetings attended as part of his or her appointment process (i.e. meetings of their TG and IDC).
  2. The IDC’ Chair’s statement (as written to the chair of the TSA Committee) that the Subcommittee has completed its task of helping to develop the applicant in the developmental process towards becoming a Training and Supervising Analyst.
  1. The applicant’s written description (three to ten pages) of the applicant’s assessment of his or her analytic work and readiness to become a Training and Supervising Analyst. The applicant is encouraged to try to assemble the work of the TG experience and the IDC experience. The expectation is that the applicant will review and discuss the description with his or her IDC before submitting the final application to the TSA Committee.

For applicants whom the IDC suggests further development, the applicant may pursue further involvement in development groups, pursue individual supervision or resumed analysis, or halt or postpone the appointment process.

The integrity of the TSA Developmental process depends on the applicant’s collaboration and willingness to communicate honestly in a report to the TSA Chair about the recommendations of the IDC and TG experiences. When the applicant summarizes his or her work, we ask that the applicant include the content of the IDC recommendations for future growth and development. When in particular circumstances suggestions are made for applicants to continue the developmental process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to make this clear in his or her report to the TSA Chair. The expectation is that the applicant will review and discuss the description with his or her IDC before submitting the final application to the TSA Chair.

The TSA Chair (or his or her designee) will review the applicant’s materials and provide a letter to the Chair of AAPE’s TSAC based on the above information, explicating the applicant’s process, qualifications, and our recommendations.
All recommendations of the TSA Committee to AAPE (based on the recommendations of the IDC) will be announced at a TSA Committee meeting.
Once the recommendation has been made, the institute sends its written application to the Training and Supervising Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) of AAPE for review.

With successful review by the TSAC, the application is brought to AAPE’s Board of Directors for formal approval of the appointment.

The institute will be informed about the approval or non approval of the application and provided with feedback in the latter case. At its discretion, the institute is free to reapply for the applicant, without prejudice.

Institutes should have a clearly written, transparent appeals process for training and supervising analyst appointment.

Back to Appendices


Appendix III. Developmental Model B

The analyst applying for appointment by means of Developmental Model B has satisfied the following criteria in addition to those listed in items 1 through 8 in section I.A. above.

What follows is written in the style of the Institute that uses this model.
***

We are pleased that you have decided to apply to become a Training and Supervising Analyst and welcome you to a process that we hope will help you develop into the role.

This process is designed to further develop your skills and your analytic identity. The procedure is collegial and collaborative with mutual feedback along the way between you and those working with you. It provides an opportunity for you to learn about your clinical strengths as well as areas that need further work.

Becoming a TA and SA can be a remarkable step in the development of an analytic clinician and can ultimately afford one the privilege, opportunity and responsibility of working intimately with future analytic colleagues in the course of their analytic development.

I. [The institute] has a policy of self-nomination. Qualified faculty members who are interested in applying are encouraged to contact the Chair of the Training Analyst Appointment Committee (TAAC).

The application and procedure are for combined TA and SA. Situations in which one wants to apply for SA only will be considered on an individual basis.

Those Training and Supervising analysts who belong to AAPE member institutes and apply to [the Institute] for Geographic Rule status need to be approved by [the Institute] and AAPE. Training and Supervising analysts from non-member AAPE institutes who apply for Geographic Rule status need to meet [the Institute’s] requirements for Training and Supervising Analyst and be approved by [the Institute] and AAPE.

Those analysts who have been approved as Training and/or Supervising Analysts from their home institutes and who then join [the Institute’s] faculty will be vetted on an individual basis.

In all cases specified in the preceding two paragraphs, applicants may be asked to participate in a review of their clinical work.

II. [Institute’s] Additional Requirements and Procedure for TA/SA.

Requirements:The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education (AAPE) requires that we have our own appointment process, that our requirements for appointment meet the minimum standards of AAPE, and that we submit the results of our process to AAPE for its review and approval.

[What follows are examples of what might be included by an individual institute in addition to the universal requirements specified in Section I.A.above.]

Applicants must also

  • Be in good financial standing at [the Institute] with all fees paid up to date
  • Have no current investigations of ethical or licensure violations in progress, and must submit a reporting of any past or current ethical or licensure violations or investigations
  • Have no condition, medical or otherwise, that could seriously compromise the applicant’s function as a Training and Supervising Analyst.
  • Include with the application, or as part of the applicant’s CV, a list of Institute and Society activities, both teaching and administrative.
  • Submit a letter of consent allowing the TAAC to contact others in connection with the application, should the TAAC feel this is necessary.

Procedure:
1. Applicants for Training and Supervising Analyst (TA/SA) request an application [AAPE’s application form] from the Institute’s central office and submit the completed application to the Chair of the TAAC, who is available for advice in filling out the application and for guidance throughout the process.

Included with the application are summary reports on all cases listed on the application. (Summaries of cases that the applicant feels would support his or her application but were treated prior to the time frame specified in the application can also be included, but are not required.) Two of these reports should be ten pages and the rest up to five pages, but no less than three. All reports need to be double spaced and single sided. The reports should emphasize the work and process of the analysis and include examples of the analyst’s interventions and the patient’s responses, as well the analyst’s understanding of the material within sessions and overall.

The purpose of the reports is to give the TAAC a sense of how the analyst works and how she or he understands the patients and the respective analytic processes, so that the next phase of the application can move forward in a way that assists the applicant’s development toward becoming a TA/SA.

2. The TAAC will convene and make a preliminary assessment of the application. At this stage the committee tries to assess character, ethical conduct, clinical aptitude and teaching ability. To assist the TAAC in this evaluation, members of the committee may contact other faculty members at the Institute who are familiar with the applicant’s work in teaching and administration. Moreover, if the applicant is coming to us from another Institute, the committee may contact any faculty member at that Institute who it feels may provide it with information that will help with its initial assessment.

The preliminary assessment will also involve a review by the TAAC of the applicant’s clinical immersion and written case summaries.

3. If after the TAAC’s preliminary assessment there are no factors that suggest that the application should be denied or deferred, the applicant will enter the next phase of the application: The Chair of the TAAC will form a Training Analyst Development Subcommittee (TADS).

4. The TADS will consist of two members of the TAAC. In some instances, a Training Analyst member of [the Institute’s] faculty who is not on the TAAC or a Training Analyst from another institute may be substituted. If the applicant objects to one or both of the assigned TADS members, he or she should feel free to confer with the Chair of the TAAC.

The applicant and/or the members of the TADS can consult with the Chair of the TAAC if they feel they are encountering problems with the process of the TADS. The TADS will otherwise not be communicating with the TAAC until it feels its task has been completed, at which point the applicant is free to respond to the communication made by the TADS to the TAAC

The TADS members will meet with the applicant in a collegial atmosphere to take up material from the the applicant’s analyses and supervision and to share their own clinical experience to the extent they are able. It is expected that the applicant will discuss more than one case with the TADS members. The purpose of these meetings is to identify for the applicant areas that need work in order to further help develop his or her abilities to conduct the analyses and supervision of candidates. The role of a TA/SA and its complexities and challenges may also be discussed when relevant.

These meetings will be as frequent as is mutually agreed upon but not less than six to eight meetings and for not less than six months.

During this time, the applicant will prepare brief self-assessment notes (one to three pages) to present to the TADS a week or two prior to each meeting. These notes are for the purpose of enhancing the applicant’s understanding of what he or she is learning and can convey, for example, the applicant’s areas of strength and weakness in working analytically or in supervising, the kind of problems she or he is having with a particular case or type of case, or the experience of the TADS process as it pertains to the applicant’s development.

The notes also assist the TADS in understanding the progress of the applicant and his or her readiness for appointment as TA/SA. The TADS members will review these notes from the applicant between meetings in order to formulate goals for the next meeting.

5. After working together for a sufficient period of time, but no less than six months, the TADS and the applicant can come to an agreement that they are ready to continue the process by engaging with the TAAC. The TADS will meet with the TAAC to convey its understanding of the applicant’s development and the applicant is welcome to convey his or her own understanding either verbally or in writing to the Chair of the TAAC.

If, after the discussion between the TADS and the TAAC, the latter votes for appointment to TA/SA, the procedure in #7 and #8 (below) will be followed. The spirit of the discussion of the TAAC will be to reach a consensus, but a majority vote of the committee will be necessary to approve the appointment.

If, after the discussion between the TADS and the TAAC, a recommendation for appointment to TA/SA cannot be made, the following options are possible.

A. After consultation between the Chair of the TAAC, the TADS and the applicant, work with the existing TADS could continue or a new TADS could be formed and the process of development of the applicant continued for at least another six months.

B. The applicant will be asked to defer the process for a significant period of time to be determined on an individual basis, in order to work independently on areas that need improvement as determined by the TAAC in consultation with the TADS.Recommendations might be made for more education, personal clinical supervision, experience as a supervisor, clinical psychoanalytic case work, and/or personal psychoanalytic treatment. The reasons for these recommendations will be explicitly conveyed to the applicant.

C. The applicant will have the option of, or the TAAC could recommend having two other consulting TAs involved in the process.
a. The TAAC will select two senior training analysts, usually, but not invariably from outside [the Institute], who will independently discuss the applicant’s clinical work with the applicant for a series of meetings over a reasonable period of time. The choice of consultants will be mutually agreed upon by the TAAC and the applicant.

b. The Chair of the TAAC will convey to the two consulting TAs specific questions regarding the applicant’s work that have come to light during the process. The applicant will be privy to these questions and may be asked to collaborate in formulating them.

c. After these consultations are complete, the consultants will submit written reports and be asked to attend a meeting of the TAAC where their understanding of the applicant’s work will be discussed. The TAAC will then vote on the appointment.

1. If the TAAC believes additional information is needed, the applicant may be asked to present to a third consultant.

2. If the TAAC believes, after the process involving the two (or three) outside analysts is complete, it cannot support a recommendation for TA/SA and further development is necessary, options A. or B. (above) may be recommended to the applicant.

3. If, after the process involving the two (or three) outside analysts, the TAAC votes to recommend appointment to TA/SA, steps #7 and #8 (below) will be followed. The spirit of the discussion of the TAAC will be to reach a consensus, but a majority vote of the committee will be necessary to approve the appointment.

4. If after all the steps above, i.e., reconvening or forming a new TADS, taking a hiatus from the process, or seeing outside consultants, the application is unsuccessful and an appointment for TA/SA is denied, the applicant can reapply one additional time after two to three years from the conclusion of the procedure. If the second application is not successful, the applicant cannot reapply before an additional three to five years have passed from the conclusion of the second procedure.

5. When the application is approved by the TAAC, the Education Committee of the institute or equivalent body will be asked to approve the appointment by majority vote.

6. If the Education Committee or equivalent body approves the appointment for TA/SA, the Chair of the EC or Director of the Institute will then submit the application, including a summary of the TA/SA process prepared by the Chair of the TAAC regarding the particular applicant, to AAPE’s TSAC for review.

7. With successful review by AAPE’s TSAC, the application is brought to AAPE’s Board of Directors for formal approval of the appointment.

8. The institute will be informed about the approval or non approval of the application and provided with feedback in the latter case. At its discretion, the institute is free to reapply for the applicant, without prejudice.

9. Institutes should have a clearly written, transparent appeals process for training and supervising analyst appointment.

10. All newly appointed TA/SAs are expected to consult with a senior TA/SA when they they begin their first training case and whenever they feel it is needed. The consultations should occur at least four to six times over a period of 12 to 18 months. Analytic supervisory work can also be discussed whenever the analyst or supervisor feel it will be helpful. The Chair of the TAAC will be available to help in finding a suitable senior TA/SA consultant from inside and outside [the Institute].

11. Being appointed TA/SA brings with it a career-long commitment to learning and development. The TA/SA has a responsibility to remain active and participatory in the profession and in his or her own developmental learning. Periodic consultation with a colleague is considered to be particularly important in this regard. Additional activities may include peer supervisory groups, writing, and presentations.

12. The TA/SA also has a responsibility to participate in the life of the Institute, especially analyzing, teaching and supervising candidates at [the Institute].

13. In applying for TA/SA, you are agreeing that you will try to work out affordable fees for the candidates you see in analysis or supervision

14. At the end of the procedures, including appeals procedures, all records will be retained at [the Institute’s] offices for a period of six years.

III. By signing this document, I agree to abide by the application procedure as well as the expectations regarding the role and responsibilities of the Training and Supervising analyst at [the Institute].

Signature: ____________________

Date: ____________________

Back to Appendices


Appendix IV. Appeals Procedure Model

The Appeal model that follows was devised by the institute using Developmental Model B and was designed to be used in conjunction with it, but it is offered here as an example of an appeals procedure and can be modified by any institute to suit its own procedures and needs.

[The Institute’s] TA/SA application procedures have been carefully developed to emphasize fairness and collaboration throughout the process. Nonetheless, there may be instances in which an applicant may wish to appeal. An appeal may be requested by an applicant under the following circumstances:

A. If the application for TA/SA is denied or deferred at the outset. An explanation of the reason will be provided in a meeting with and in writing by the Chair of the Training Analyst Appointment Committee (TAAC), the Chair having consulted with the TAAC.

B. If at any time during the procedure the TAAC feels there is a problem that leads it to believe the procedure should be discontinued or deferred and 5 A, B and C [in Developmental Model B] are not offered to the applicant. An explanation will be given to the applicant in person and in writing by the Chair of the TAAC.

C. If the applicant has gone through option 5A and 5C twice without a two year break as specified in 5B above [in Developmental Model B], and the TAAC believes the process of development is not progressing and it advises the applicant to discontinue the process. An explanation of the reason will be given to the applicant in writing by the Chair of the TAAC.

An appeal must be filed within six months after any of the above circumstances.

If an appeal is requested by the applicant, the Director of [the Institute], in consultation with the Chair of the EC, shall appoint a three-member Appeal Committee consisting of two TAs and one non-TA, at least one of whom is from [the Institute]. One of these analysts shall be appointed Chair of the Appeal Committee by the Director of the Institute in consultation with the Chair of the EC. These analysts shall not have been involved in the original procedure, nor be members of the current TAAC.

The Appeal Committee shall be provided with the application as well as a complete record of the TA/SA review of the applicant by the TADS [see Developmental Model B] and TAAC, including any reports from the outside consultants and any notes of the applicant during the TADS or at other points during the procedure. The Appeal Committee shall have the option of interviewing anyone involved in the TA/SA proceedings, including the applicant. The purpose of the review will be to determine if the process was fair and consistent in following [the Institute’s] TA/SA procedures.

At the conclusion of the appeal review, the Appeal Committee shall submit its decision in writing to the Director of [the Institute]. The Appeal Committee’s decision can be to either agree with the decision of the TAAC or to advise that the applicant reenter the procedure with suggestions from the Appeal Committee to the TAAC for how the latter should proceed.

The applicant and the TAAC will be given notice by the Director of the Institute of the Appeal Committee’s decision, which shall be binding.

By participating in the review, the applicant and the TAAC indicate agreement to abide by the decision of the Appeal Committee.

Back to Appendices