This exploratory study explored the training and post-training experience of graduates of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis. All living graduates of the past six decades were invited to complete a survey that addressed their training analysis, classroom work, supervision and other training experiences as well as their degree of post-graduation involvement in teaching, supervising, study groups and other professional endeavors. They were also asked to rate their sense of themselves as psychoanalysts and their satisfaction with their analytic career. Further, they were encouraged to provide spontaneous narrative data. Our findings contribute to the current understanding of the careers of psychoanalysts--including that there is a difference in generational cohorts regarding professional satisfaction, identification as an analyst, and experience of training. We also found that there are no real differences between analysts who do and do not have analytic patients on some important variables: supporting analysis as a treatment method, identifying oneself professionally with psychoanalysis, and disillusionment with psychoanalysis--which is consistent with other studies. Also discovered were differences between male and female analysts' perception of certain aspects of their training.

This exploratory study looks at the training and postgraduate experience of the 2008-2014 graduates of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis. It follows our former study of all living graduates through the year 2007 (Schneider et al., 2014). The survey developed and used in the first study, with a few additional questions added to increase our understanding of the training experience, was sent to 38 graduates with a return rate of 58%. As with the first survey, graduates were invited to assess, among other training experiences, their training analysis, classroom work, and supervision, and to tell of their post-graduation involvement in teaching, supervising, study groups and other professional endeavors. They were also asked to rate their satisfaction with themselves as psychoanalysts and with their analytic career. The questions added to the previous survey related to the graduates' theoretical orientation, the influence on their training experiences of the change in gender distribution, and of the diversity of professions now represented in the analytic training program. They were also encouraged to provide spontaneous narrative data. The data from our second survey showed important differences when compared with our first. In the first survey male respondents were in the majority; in the second, women held the majority. Of the professions represented in the training program, psychiatry was the majority in the first survey, psychology and social work held the majority in the second. Most respondents claimed an object-relation theoretical orientation. Analytic immersion continues to decrease, with most respondents having two patients at the time of graduation and one at the time of the survey.

In survey research, a return rate of 60% is really excellent and certainly enough to discern trends. It doesn't mean that there was a dropout of 40%. Dropout is a very different thing. Some of the graduates declined to participate because of health reasons.As for the survey being framed positively, while the questions were in the positive, it was a Likert scale which allows for negative responses, plus we had a narrative section which allowed for both positive and negative responses. People who were unhappy with their training experience were represented across all age groups. Yes, the older people tended to report a more happy experience. We are not saying that there are no problems in institutes; this exploratory study was only looking at broad trends. A follow-up study is being currently conducted to see if major trends hold up with a sample of more recent graduates.Regarding what is an acceptable return rate, here are some examples from the literature:One early example of a finding was reported by Visser et al. (1996) who showed that surveys with lower response rates (near 20%) yielded more accurate measurements than did surveys with higher response rates (near 60 or 70%). In another study, Keeter et al. (2006) compared results of a 5 day survey employing the Pew Research Center's usual methodology (with a 25% response rate) with results from a more rigorous survey conducted over a much longer field period and achieving a higher response rate of 50%. In 77 out of 84 comparisons, the two surveys yielded results that were statistically indistinguishable.Nevertheless, in spite of these research studies, a higher response rate is preferable because the missing data is not random. There is no satisfactory statistical solution to deal with missing data that may not be random. Assuming an extreme bias in the responders is one suggested method of dealing with low survey rates. Getting a high response rate (>80%) from a small, random sample is considered preferable to a low response rate from a large sample.The survey was not endorsed by the leaders of the institute but by the faculty who provided some of the questions that helped develop the questionnaire. The research group functions independently from the institute's administration (se methodology.) The questionnaires had no identifying information on them and were separated from the consent forms, which were needed for participation in the research. The data were then aggreInt J Psychoanal (2016) 97:505-506

No abstract

No abstract