Elusis ([info]elusis) wrote,
@ 2008-05-13 17:37:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
"How do I find a therapist?"
I have answered this question a number of times in various places, and decided to make it a public post that people can save to memories and I can refer back to as needed.

The following is my opinion, and is meant to be taken as such. For those who might get linked to this who don't know me, I have an MA and PhD in Marriage and Family Therapy, am a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in Colorado and am working on getting California to license me as well, and teach graduate students in an MA Counseling Psychology program that leads to licensure. I have been doing clinical work for nearly 11 years at the time of this post, and have been a client in therapy multiple times as a child and adult. I've participated in accreditation of graduate programs, and have published book chapters and articles in peer-reviewed journals.

So the best way to find a therapist is to talk to someone who has a therapist they like, who works with concerns similar to yours. Word-of-mouth is far better than starting with a directory. But that's not always possible.

In the absence of ideas from others in the area, I suggest you have a look in your zip code at http://www.therapistlocator.net - it's the website for Clinical Members of my professional association. Many therapists have "expanded listings" available there which can give you some ideas about their practice. Yes, I am biased toward Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists. It's the only profession whose clinical training I know enough about to be moderately comfortable recommending in a general way, and yet there are plenty of mediocre people in my field just like there are in the others (Licensed Clinical Social Worker, Licensed Professional Counselor, Licensed Psychologist, etc.)

There are hundreds of online resources for finding therapists; however you should realize that most of them are "pay for play," or fee-based directories. Therapists are required to abide by the laws regarding advertising set by their state, which may determine whether they need a license to practice, and what titles they can use for themselves, but these laws vary widely. National groups in addition to AAMFT (my national) that I know to be reputable include the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers. If they have directories, I'd tend to trust them.

I strongly encourage you to ask as many questions as you need over the phone, in order to get a feel for their personality. I personally didn't offer a "free consultation" because I found that people tended to no-show for them at a high enough rate that it wasn't worth the time I was taking out of my schedule. I had one or two potential clients taka a lot of exception to that, and I've seen people talk as though it's somehow shady for a therapist to not offer it. Obviously my opinion differs. My way of allowing people to check me out was to take time with them on the phone.

If you are someone who wants to research your therapist before meeting with them, as well as get a feel for them personally, I generally suggest asking things like:

- how long they've been in the field

- what their degree is, and what it's in (good: MA or PhD or PsyD in something like counseling psychology, counseling social work, marriage and family therapy, psychology, etc. Bad: bachelor's degree or some pseudo-degree with its own acronym, fields that sound dubious or woo-woo. "Sexology" is one of my personal buzzwords.)

- what their license is (good: LMFT, LPC, LCSW, licensed psychologist. Also fine: "I'm being supervised toward licensure as _____." Bad: not licensed, not working toward licensure. Some states allow this, but it is the category of practitioners most likely to have a grievance filed against them. Do with that info what you will.)

- tell them a bit about your situation. See what kind of questions they ask - do they seem able to summarize your concerns in a way you agree with? Do they seem to get intrusive or try to treat you over the phone? How do you feel when you're telling them your reasons for wanting therapy? Do you like them? Do they annoy you?

- ask them if they frequently see clients with similar concerns.

- ask them if they have a specific theory or methodology they use, and if it's not familiar to you, ask if they can briefly tell you about it in a way a layperson can understand. I call Quackwatch on some of the currently trendy pseudo-therapies like Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Thought Field Therapy, Emotional Freedom Technique (not to be conused with Emotionally Focused Therapy which is VERY well researched and a great approach), and (my opinion) EMDR. I am generally willing to try to answer questions about therapeutic approaches to the best of my ability, though as an MFT, my speciality is in family systems therapies, not in individual/psychodynamic therapies. Wikipedia pretty much sucks in this regard - most of the theories with good-sized entries have been written by promoters of said theories, and tend to be the new shiny quacky ones.

- you should ask about anything that would be a special concern for you. Do you want a therapist who is a feminist, or who understands social justice? Do you need access accomodation due to a disability? Do you want someone who understands queer people in general, or specifically transmen? Do you want a queer person or a person of color as your therapist, or would it be OK to see a straight or white person who has experienced working with marginalized people? Do you want someone who understands and supports Health At Every Size? Do you want someone of the same religion as you, or no religion at all?

- ask them how therapy with them typically looks. Do they normally see clients every week, every other week, or let the clients set the pace? Do they meet for 45 minutes, 50 minutes, 60 minutes, 90 minutes? What's the typical length of treatment for someone with your concerns? (my personal preference is to run screaming from anyone who says they do Brief/Brief Solution-Focused therapy or says they can treat people in fewer than 12-16 sessions, but that's me. My personal experience is that my clients typically came weekly for 3-4 months if they were very distressed to start, then bi-weekly for another 3-5 months, but it varied a lot.) What's their cancellation policy, and is it one that will work for your life? Do you need someone who's on your insurance? Someone who can see you in the evenings or on weekends?

- are they experienced with working with couples and/or families? I'm biased as an MFT myself, but I often found couple work to be helpful in treating many of the "individual" problems people called about, and the efficacy research supports use of couple/family therapy for many problems. You may not care about this point, but I'm including it because I wish more people would ask it!

And then you get to go with your gut. :)

Remember, you're the consumer here - it's your money and time you're investing. You have the right to ask for your questions to get answered or to move on.

I have rejected potential therapists for a variety of reasons. I excluded one therapist from consideration when I was shopping around because she acted really frustrated when I said I wanted every-other-week sessions - she really only met with people weekly. I ruled out another guy who had an MA in MFT but a PhD in neuropsychology, because he had no coherent answer when I asked him how his PhD work (in a very hard science field) impacted his understanding of his MA work (in a very systemic field that was born out of rejecting the medical model.) I ruled out a woman who said she was straight but "really liked working with gays and lesbians" because something about her answer made me feel like a science project (and besides, I had just said to her that I identify as bisexual.) I ruled out a guy who asked me a million questions when I called about services, then tried to schedule an appointment without giving me a chance to ask him any (I'm the customer here, bub.)

You're the customer. You have the right to find a therapist you can work with.

Yes, you can link to this. No, you don't need to ask me.

Also: this post is not intended as a stimulus for people to tell me about why I'm wrong about (insert field or approach here). You're welcome to have a different opinion than me. I've based my opinions on a lot of research and experience in the field, and I keep up on new developments pretty well. If you want to defend a particular therapy, please post about it in your own journal.


(Post a new comment)


[info]panjianlien
2008-05-14 01:16 am UTC (link)
Could you perhaps say a few words on the differences/similarities between therapy and analysis?

I was surprised, the last time I went looking for a therapist, to find that there are still Freudians out there... and more surprised to find that one of them was prepared to offer me Freudian "therapy." When I asked if he meant analysis, he said "yes, that's the same thing as therapy."

I didn't want to get into a "is!" "isn't!" "is!" "isn't!" match with him, but that struck me awfully oddly, that he would say that.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rivetpepsquad
2008-05-14 03:00 am UTC (link)
(As the one trained in individual/psychodynamic theories and therapies...)

NO, it isn't the same thing!


Classical psychoanalysis:
-high-frequency visits (4-5x a week)
-lying on the couch with analyst out of sight behind you
-lengthy treatment time (years)
-you free-associate while the analyst is mostly silent [though this is a very traditional form, and current analysts participate using many different styles]

It tends, as a result of the above, to be extremely depth-oriented and intense.

Its use, especially in the days of managed care, is somewhat on the decline, except for the very wealthy who can kick down a few hundred a day for the privilege (though there are lower-fee clinics in the area staffed by those being trained as analysts).


Psychodynamic/psychoanalytic psychotherapy uses psychoanalysis as its theoretical base for understanding individual and relational dynamics, and is informed by the processes and history of analysis, but does not consist of the same kind of structure nor at the same frequency, and is conducted face-to-face. There can be a lot of crossover in terms of technique.



So, basically, that dude was wrong-O.
(And did he really spring the big "F"?)



(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]panjianlien
2008-05-14 10:44 am UTC (link)
I asked him what his training was and he announced that he had a Ph.D. in some branch of psych (I forget now what flavor) and a certificate from the Freud Institute.

I wanted to ask him when he'd studied there because my diss advisor also had a certificate from the Freud Institute and I was very curious whether they'd overlapped, but I didn't. Instead I asked him what his modalities of practice were, from a clinical standpoint, and he happily volunteered that he preferred Freudian analysis as his primary method. IIRC he had a sort of weird "back to basics!" mindset about it which seemed skeevy to me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rivetpepsquad
2008-05-14 06:01 pm UTC (link)
Hooray for super-informed clients, I say, and good for you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]jonathankorman
2008-05-14 01:25 pm UTC (link)
I've met a bloke who was actually very explicit about the distinction. He said that his avocation was classical Freudian psychoanalysis — couch, free association, the whole nine — but that he did very little of that, making his bread-and-butter as a therapist.

“Freudian psychotherapy is sort of becoming a lost art,” he said, and I felt a little bit like I was talking to a coelacanth.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rivetpepsquad
2008-05-14 05:57 pm UTC (link)
And given what a YOUNG field we are, it's strange, isn't it?


I was trained by a LOT of analysts (which informs some of the work I do, but doesn't structure it), so I certainly and absolutely know the type you're talking about.

They have their uses.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 06:03 am UTC (link)
The RPS has given you a pretty good answer there.

I would say that analysis might be one type of "therapy," but therapy and analysis are not totally contiguous areas of the Venn Diagram.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]redbird
2008-05-14 01:29 am UTC (link)
No arguments (and in fact this seems quite useful, though I'm not looking for a therapist now), just a question: what does EMDR stand for?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 06:00 am UTC (link)
Eye Movement Desensitizatino and Re-processing.

On the one hand, it seems to have been helpful to some people I know. On the other hand, it has not done a good job of distinguishing itself from simple placebo effect.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rivetpepsquad
2008-05-14 06:10 am UTC (link)
Dismantling research suggests that its effectiveness is all about exposure to the feared stimulus, and that the eye movements have nothing to do with it at all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 06:07 pm UTC (link)
Bingo.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]danger_mousekin
2008-05-14 01:40 am UTC (link)
yay therapy!!
(did i just say that??? i guess i did!)

(Reply to this)


[info]jonathankorman
2008-05-14 01:42 am UTC (link)
Thanks for this.

My interest was piqued by your comment about “currently trendy pseudo-therapies like Neuro-Linguistic Programming.” I've seen NLP practitioners do some impressive tricks ... but I've always suspected that there's something fishy about the whole thing that I couldn't put my finger on, and haven't taken time to dig into. With your coda about not wanting to defend your opinions about various approaches, I understand if you don't want to get into it, but I'd be quite appreciative if you could unpack this comment just a bit.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 06:01 am UTC (link)
impressive tricks

I feel like you answered your own question right there, nu?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jonathankorman
2008-05-14 01:27 pm UTC (link)
Heh, yeah. There's something parlor-trick-y about what I've seen of NLP, so maybe that is all there is to say about it. It bugs me that I can't quite name what about it makes me read it that way.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]angelbob
2008-05-14 04:23 pm UTC (link)
Read some of their books. You'll figure out in short order what makes you read it that way. That's their teaching approach, at least traditionally -- "look, here's a big bag of strange tricks and convincers."

I consider that a shame... I've got basic training in hypnotherapy (Hypnotherapy Training Institute, Corte Madera, CA, 250 hours). I think NLP is a great set of adjuncts for hypnotherapy, which is how it started. But yeah, when you take away the basic hypnotherapy underpinnings, what you get is a set of tricks and convincers without much to unify them.

Richard Bandler (one of the two inventors of NLP) was convinced that you could pretty much do hypnotherapy in fast-forward with NLP, and there's some evidence that he could do so reliably. There is less evidence that his successors, who tended to learn NLP instead of hypnotherapy, got similar results.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jonathankorman
2008-05-14 04:49 pm UTC (link)
a set of tricks and convincers without much to unify them

Huh. Actually, I got curious a while back and picked up one of their books, and there was this sort of hazy implication that NLP offered some kind of super duper unifying theory of the mind ... without me being able to see an actual unifying theory. I sort of presumed that this was just because I quickly lost interest and didn't pursue it any further. So it's reassuring to hear that no, there just isn't any there there.

I also vividly recall the aphorism “the meaning of your communication is the response you get,” which I found epistemologically discomforting.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]angelbob
2008-05-14 05:22 pm UTC (link)
There's not really a unifying theory of mind, other than perhaps conditioned response in the small. They believe very, very strongly in conditioned responses, but believe in them in very small and subtle ways (in addition to the big ones, of course). But that's hardly unique to NLP.

Also, NLP works very strongly to change people's behavior without worrying so much about why it's like that in the first place. When they say, "the meaning of your communication is the response you get," they are saying, approximately, "your communication is correct if it gets the results you want" or "the ends justify the means." So yes, discomforting, partially because they're not actually being philosophical about it at all. Depending on how sympathetic you feel toward them, they're being either ruthlessly practical or shamelessly manipulative.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 05:48 pm UTC (link)
Also, NLP works very strongly to change people's behavior without worrying so much about why it's like that in the first place.

Please re-read what I said above about arguing in favor of approaches. The approach has a dubious past and, to quote from Quackwatch, "A National Research Council committee has found no significant evidence that NLP's theories are sound or that its practices are effective."

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 05:49 pm UTC (link)
Perhaps it's that it *is* a series of parlor tricks? There's no evidence it results in any kind of long-term change.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]paigenotpage
2008-05-14 01:44 am UTC (link)
my personal preference is to run screaming from anyone who says they do Brief/Brief Solution-Focused therapy
Dude, A.MEN.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 06:02 am UTC (link)
Some people are fans, I know, I know.

For me... Not so much. I sense the insurance tail wagging the therapy dog, plus a history of Strategic interventions that may have been re-packaged in postmodern clothing, but are still not that different from Ye Olde Paradoxical Directives.

I have had people try to use Brief Solution-Focused techniques on me. It made me want to punch them.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rivetpepsquad
2008-05-14 02:14 am UTC (link)
SO BUENO. I added this to my topmost info-dump post.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 06:02 am UTC (link)
Yay! I was hoping you would.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]the_red_shoes
2008-05-14 04:15 am UTC (link)
What a good post -- thank you for writing it. I shall point people towards it.

(Reply to this)


[info]kightp
2008-05-14 06:10 am UTC (link)
This is brilliant. If I'd had a primer like this when I was looking for a therapist, it might have saved me several false starts. I'm socking it in my LJ memories for the next time I run into someone who asks *me* for help choosing a therapist. Because people ask me the oddest things.)

(Reply to this)


[info]baconmonkey
2008-05-14 11:35 am UTC (link)
pshaw, that's the long answer. The short answer is found here:

:P




(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 05:57 pm UTC (link)
Someone has apparently heard about my proposal for "slap therapy."

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]nunofthat
2008-05-14 02:19 pm UTC (link)
Sexology! Say more!

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 05:58 pm UTC (link)
Well you can put the suffix -ology on the end of just about any noun to sound like a legitimate scientific field, can't you?

I, myself, am a practitioner of foodology, danceology, and dorkology.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rivetpepsquad
2008-05-14 11:47 pm UTC (link)
I HAS ADVANCED DEGREE IN DORKOLOGY, PLZ STAND ASIDE






SRS DOKTOR K THX

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]elusis
2008-05-14 06:06 pm UTC (link)
But seriously, my contact with "sexologists" and schools that give degrees in "sexology" gives me the general impression that it is a field invented out of whole cloth for those who don't feel like working for an MA or PhD in a mental health field. There's a very damning explication of the training required by one of the local schools here. They may have been somewhat updated, but in general, my experience is that the requirements for sexology degrees in general are similarly... light.

I am much more professionally comfortable with AASECT and its procedure for credentialing sex therapists, which is fairly rigorous.

Edited to add: "Sexology" programs don't lead to licensure in any state that I'm aware of.

Edited at 2008-05-15 12:18 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nunofthat
2008-05-16 04:33 am UTC (link)
Oh my dear sweet good lord! Thanks for the link.

But do sexologists consider themselves mental health practitioners, though?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]elusis
2008-05-16 07:18 am UTC (link)
In California, you need a license to practice therapy and it's pretty hard, if not impossible, to get a license without a more typical degree. On the other hand, many states (including Colorado) allow people to practice as "unlicensed psychotherapists" just by registering with the Board.

And people can nickel and dime you to death on whether they're doing "therapy" or "life coaching" or "consulting" or whatever as another way of playing with the regulations.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]zombienurse
2008-05-14 03:20 pm UTC (link)
Sexology made me lulz.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…