A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychoanalytic Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Not Just Anything Goes: Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Competencies in
Psychology Doctoral Programs
John M. Poston, PhD, and Earl D. Bland, PsyD
Biola University
Although the field of professional psychology has moved to an increased emphasis on assessing trainees’
clinical competencies (Roberts, Borden, Christiansen, & Lopez, 2005), the field of psychoanalysis has
lagged behind. A few psychoanalytic competency models have begun to emerge (e.g., Barsness, 2017;
Cabaniss, 2008;Lemma, Roth, & Pilling, 2008;Morris, Javier, & Herron, 2015;Tuckett, 2005);
however, these models primarily focus on full analytic training in postdoctoral institutes, tend to not set
benchmarks of what competencies may be expected at different developmental points across a training
sequence, and are often described at a level of detail that renders the model impractical for regular use
in evaluating student learning. As such, the current article addresses this important gap in the literature
by specifying a competency model of psychoanalytically informed psychotherapy that may be used in
conjunction with existing American Psychological Association competency benchmark documents (e.g.,
Fouad et al., 2009), and may serve as a tool for psychoanalytic psychotherapy training in doctoral
programs in clinical and counseling psychology.
Keywords: psychoanalytic training, psychoanalytic competencies, competency models, psychoanalytic
psychotherapy, professional psychology education and training
When reflecting on the evaluation of outcomes in psychoana-
lytic training, Tuckett (2005) provocatively questioned, “Does
anything go?” (p. 31). Tuckett went on to articulate the importance
of having a transparent framework for evaluating psychoanalytic
competencies, for the purposes of both clinical training and com-
municating within and outside of the psychoanalytic community.
Indeed, the absence of clearly articulated psychoanalytic compe-
tencies may lead to trainee evaluations that lack transparency and
are more vulnerable to undue influence by political factors and
relational dynamics within the training context (cf. Junkers, Tuck-
ett, & Zachrisson, 2008;Kernberg, 2000;Tuckett, 2005). Thus, it
is perhaps not surprising that some psychoanalytic trainees report
dissatisfaction with the lack of clear evaluative criteria in their
training programs (Katz, Kaplan, & Stromberg, 2012a). Certainly,
much has been written over the years critiquing psychoanalytic
education (e.g., Balint, 1948;Kernberg, 1986,2000;Michels,
2007;San Martino, 2003;Wallerstein, 1972,2007), and this over-
all state of affairs has led some writers to call for the creation of
more specific statements of psychoanalytic training standards and
competencies (Cabaniss, Schein, Rosen, & Roose, 2003;Kernberg
& Michels, 2016;Tuckett, 2005).
This push toward greater transparency and intentionality in
assessing competence is not at all limited to training in psycho-
analysis. Over the past couple of decades, a notable shift has also
taken place in doctoral education in professional psychology.
Specifically, there has been a shift to a “culture of competence”
(Roberts et al., 2005, p. 356), where graduates need to demonstrate
particular proficiencies in professional psychology, rather than
merely complete required training experiences. As part of this shift
toward a culture of competence in professional psychology, the
American Psychological Association (APA) requires accredited
programs to assess trainees’ competencies in numerous domains
(APA, 2015) and supports the use of a benchmark document that
articulates the basic competencies graduate students should be able
to demonstrate at various developmental levels of training (e.g.,
Fouad et al., 2009). These changes within professional psychology
also echo a paradigm shift across the broader field of higher
education to a greater emphasis on assessing student learning
outcomes (Barr & Tagg, 1995;Hensel, Hunnicutt, & Salomon,
2015;Watson & Reigeluth, 2008;Webber, 2012;Weimer, 2002).
As professional psychology has increasingly moved to a culture
of competence, the field of psychoanalysis has lagged behind. The
American Psychoanalytic Association’s (APsaA; 2015) Standards
for Education & Training in Psychoanalysis asserts that psycho-
analytic competence must be demonstrated for a candidate to
graduate; however, little direction is given regarding what these
competencies are or how they may be assessed. Furthermore,
many psychoanalytic training sequences are based on the Eitingon
(1923) model, which advances a tripartite focus on a personal
training analysis, supervision, and didactic courses. Although this
approach strongly articulates key components of a training se-
quence, its implementation may lend itself to a more dated em-
phasis on educational inputs (e.g., accruing a certain number of
control case of a particular length; Cabaniss et al., 2003), rather
than clearly specifying educational outcomes, such as the partic-
ular clinical competencies trainees should possess at the conclu-
This article was published Online First February 18, 2019.
John M. Poston, PhD, and Earl D. Bland, PsyD, Rosemead School of
Psychology, Biola University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John M.
Poston, Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, La Mirada, CA
90639. E-mail: john.poston@biola.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychoanalytic Psychology
© 2019 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 37, No. 1, 62–73
0736-9735/20/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pap0000209
62
