Comrade, in the U.S. it is not uncommon for a T to claim that they are "eclectic" or to claim mastery of or the ability to work from 4-6 (or more!) therapeutic approaches. (Psychology Today has a section that features profiles from therapists advertising their wares. Good for a laugh sometimes.)

This, of course, means they are mediocre (at best) at any of these approaches. Most of these Ts did not even take a full course in any one of these therapeutic approaches in their master's program, I'll wager. (EMDR training is done after the degree so that's a bit different. If they have that certification, they can't fake it.)

Being eclectic is wonderful if you're truly well- trained in multiple modalities!

But if you're just using a mish-mash of "a little bit of this and a little dash of that," well... you're not helping us to understand anything about whether the approach is effective, or for whom or under what conditions it's effective. That is not helping to further the profession.

And even if it is helpful to clients... perhaps it is... unless you take meticulous notes about exactly which components of Model A you used and did not use along with exactly which components of Model B you used and did not use... and so on for however many models you say you're proficient in... how can you ever replicate that success with future clients who present with a similar problem? [emoji848]

TL;DR I agree that the client should know what therapeutic approach a T is using. That should at least help them to find a T who uses a different approach (or the same approach, if their T retires) if necessary. Unfortunately, the norms in the U.S. don't support this except possibly among those doing true psychoanalysis.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk