and Empirical Research
REBECCA C. CURTIS & MAZIA QAISER
In the last century, psychoanalytic training has evolved both theoretically and practically from the classical discoveries of Freud in the early 1900s. Regardless of the theoretical orientation of a psychoanalytic institute, the training analysis has been cited as the most important and crucial component for the analytic candidate (Benedek, 1969; Bibring, 1954; Limentani, 1974, 1992; Torras de Bea, 1992). Yet the empirical research dedicated to understanding and uncovering the unique dynamics of the training analysis is relatively sparse.
As we enter a new millennium in the understanding of the analytic process as an interactive merging of an analyst's experience with that of her or his training analyst, we hope to encourage more quantitative studies on the single most important part of the analytic candidate's study—the training analysis. We psychoanalysts also require further research on how change can be measured within the psychoanalytic process.
This chapter begins with a brief historical account of theoretical writings about the training analysis. We then review the empirical research on outcomes of training analyses and discuss suggestions for future research.
Early in the development of psychoanalysis, Freud (1910/1968) expressed the need for personal analysis for those who wanted to apply psychoanalytic technique. He continued his elaborations on “training” analysis in his work “Analysis Terminable and Interminable” (1937/1968), suggesting