Observations on assessment of analyzability by experienced analysts

Some specific approaches to the study of analyzability have been identified in this study as productive and feasible. First, it was possible to enlist a group of experienced analysts as a source of clinical material--the data and their own evaluations. Second, the assessment of analyzability can only be made at the end of the treatment. Third, the classification of analysands as either "analyzable" or "unanalyzable" warrants further differentiation. Cases of patients who develop an analytic process may have variable outcomes: some conclude successfully with no modification in technique; some conclude with significant limitations in the analytic resolution; others require an appropriate modification in technique at some point. Cases of unanalyzable patients also have a variable outcome: some develop no useful treatment situation; in others the patient's unsuitability for analysis is manifest very early and a change to the appropriate psychotherapy is made. The study of how analysts make their evaluations and the subsequent course of those treatments seems useful in providing information on our work as psychoanalysts pertinent to practice, teaching, and research. Our experience suggests that a prospective study would be advantageous: data reported at the time of assessment could be more complete and less subject to retrospective distortion; definitions and criteria could be established in advance; important questions could be more clearly defined and explored as the material develops (by co-investigators as well as the analyst). This might include significant differences between analysts, the identification and impact of modifications, and the study of cases started in psychotherapy and subsequently seen in analysis.