Massage Survey- Personal Interview- Contact Me

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gloria Coppola on November 6, 2009 at 11:01am

Thanks Carl for your input!

I just developed a curriculum for a new massage school in asheville, nc that actually has
a segment for Medical/therapeutic type techniques, pathologies, pharmacology etc. and another
segment for Spa modalities, which are also going to be approach for"more than relaxation", but also therapeutic and
provide all therapists an understanding of what Spa modalities can offer.

The Swedish foundation is extensive and thorough and A&P hours have been increased.

Also a VERY important component is a huge segment for Business that is covered at different
stages throughout the training!

I would have loved the course to be 1,000 hrs , but negotiated with the owners for 700. I would have really loved to see it be more "time in months" but we compromised on 8 months at this point.

Also I am interviewing the potential instructors, I am requiring them to do a 1 hr. presentation (lecture/hands on combo). I want to see how they present, skills, methods, interaction etc.

My "intention" is to hopefully influence the spa industry to up their skills /offerings too! Lots going on in my little brain :)

It is difficult, as you say lumping it all together! I agree!

Really appreciating everyone's input!
Together we will make a difference!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gloria Coppola on November 6, 2009 at 11:45am

Mobile Massage Practitioners @ 18%
1st is Private @ 70%
2nd is Spa @ 27%
and 3rd is Mobile!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on November 6, 2009 at 12:13pm

The only folks calling our existing massage therapy exams jokes are the folks afraid to take them. They are the same folks allowing CAs Scope of Practice to be whittled on to this point. It will continue, because they can not understand this simple information.
Carl W. Brown said:

You are so right. Trying to set a single BOK of all of bodywork just won't work. We need to base massage on Swedish and have a based Swedish BOK for entry level relaxation work and a second standard for therapeutic massage. Lumping all on bodywork into massage is why the NCB and MBLEx tests are a joke.

http://www.massagetoday.com/massagepoll/03archive/10_03.php

I also think that we need to separate basic massage from therapeutic massage. Not everyone does therapeutic massage and the public needs to know the difference. They are two different services. If you don’t work on clients in street clothes or want to call your work massage you at least need to master basic Swedish. If you want to do Swedish based therapy you need and additional set of skills. I believe we can set real standards for these because you have a consistent set of requires skills that can actually be correlated to the performance of each and every practitioner. We also need to make it clear that this standard does not apply to other modalities because they each have their own BOK.

The education must be cost effective in that it all relates to objective performance and we need standards so that you need to pass the standards and hours do not matter.

If you have one standard and train everyone to do therapeutic work, a person doing just spa work will lose their skills. On the other hand they will probably be focusing on doing better relaxation work than you will get from someone doing therapeutic massage.

Gloria Coppola said:

Sharing some of the interesting and valuable comments from the survey. Just letting you know what some people are thinking/feeling. Some of these comments are posted similar on the survey with different wording, so I am not going to post everyone! Thanks for Participating . Keep telling others!

1. We need to unify the profession MTBOK is way off track and needs to be revised. COMTA is in need of overhaul to be complete. Why are we seen as a wish/washy care, because we don't come together and publish research results consistantly. To many therapist charge outlandish prices for "Specialty" massage they are not certified in. Start with Swedish as the base, then only provide and charge for specialty when certified in each modality, there is no consistant way of knowing who actually knows/does what. Physicians do the same thing and there are many law suits that are proving malpractice, this is the next step for massage if we don't clean up first.

2.I would like to see American regulators set standards that elevate this profession. I think it is not ok just to set standards that allow people to squeek by. Instead, I would like to see robustly trained therapist entering the field. They would then move the profession forward. More alliances with main stream education is also criticle. The physiotherapist have demonstated that issuing a degree that allows them to work toward Masters and PhD status has really elevated their credibility. A diploma just does not hold water in the world. Our practitoners must be granted the right to higher education with in our field..

3.I'd like to see a national plan for all massage therapists as opposed to each state having its own regulations, a national organization that would have muscles to flex in connection with "protecting MT's", i.e., sales tax, licensing fees, ceu requirements.

4.would love to be recognized by other medical professionals as someone who is knowledagble, educated and well informed. Not just someone who rubs people in spas! Sometimes there are instances where we have more education than some nurses but don't earn anywhere close to what they do. It would be great to be compensated accordingly. WE offer such a benefit but the medical world is fearfully of this because they think they will loose money. If they truly only knew that we could benefit them and their patients. WE all need to work together for the health and lively hood of our people of the world!

5.My Pet Peeve is that some massage schools promote massage therapy as a way to earn $65 an hour, and don't provide the information on good business practices, ethics, self-care. And that newbies should realize that they are new to the field - and to find a mentor, and not think they have all the knowledge they need to have to call themselves 'specialized' in a particular field.

And finally (for today) the survey shows we mostly went into this field to HELP people and it is also the comment that most people are making in their personal comments. They love what they do!!

Once I have more results, I will post more information!

Thanks again!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gloria Coppola on November 6, 2009 at 1:30pm

I don't it necessarily that they are afraid to take them. I disagree.
I just think people are fed up on different levels. I hear things from alot of MT's in my teaching travels too!

Many of us are mainly concerned with yet another fee...for what?
Some of these people are extremely intelligent and talented.

Mike Hinkle said:

The only folks calling our existing massage therapy exams jokes are the folks afraid to take them. They are the same folks allowing CAs Scope of Practice to be whittled on to this point. It will continue, because they can not understand this simple information.
Carl W. Brown said:

You are so right. Trying to set a single BOK of all of bodywork just won't work. We need to base massage on Swedish and have a based Swedish BOK for entry level relaxation work and a second standard for therapeutic massage. Lumping all on bodywork into massage is why the NCB and MBLEx tests are a joke.

http://www.massagetoday.com/massagepoll/03archive/10_03.php

I also think that we need to separate basic massage from therapeutic massage. Not everyone does therapeutic massage and the public needs to know the difference. They are two different services. If you don’t work on clients in street clothes or want to call your work massage you at least need to master basic Swedish. If you want to do Swedish based therapy you need and additional set of skills. I believe we can set real standards for these because you have a consistent set of requires skills that can actually be correlated to the performance of each and every practitioner. We also need to make it clear that this standard does not apply to other modalities because they each have their own BOK.

The education must be cost effective in that it all relates to objective performance and we need standards so that you need to pass the standards and hours do not matter.

If you have one standard and train everyone to do therapeutic work, a person doing just spa work will lose their skills. On the other hand they will probably be focusing on doing better relaxation work than you will get from someone doing therapeutic massage.

Gloria Coppola said:

Sharing some of the interesting and valuable comments from the survey. Just letting you know what some people are thinking/feeling. Some of these comments are posted similar on the survey with different wording, so I am not going to post everyone! Thanks for Participating . Keep telling others!

1. We need to unify the profession MTBOK is way off track and needs to be revised. COMTA is in need of overhaul to be complete. Why are we seen as a wish/washy care, because we don't come together and publish research results consistantly. To many therapist charge outlandish prices for "Specialty" massage they are not certified in. Start with Swedish as the base, then only provide and charge for specialty when certified in each modality, there is no consistant way of knowing who actually knows/does what. Physicians do the same thing and there are many law suits that are proving malpractice, this is the next step for massage if we don't clean up first.

2.I would like to see American regulators set standards that elevate this profession. I think it is not ok just to set standards that allow people to squeek by. Instead, I would like to see robustly trained therapist entering the field. They would then move the profession forward. More alliances with main stream education is also criticle. The physiotherapist have demonstated that issuing a degree that allows them to work toward Masters and PhD status has really elevated their credibility. A diploma just does not hold water in the world. Our practitoners must be granted the right to higher education with in our field..

3.I'd like to see a national plan for all massage therapists as opposed to each state having its own regulations, a national organization that would have muscles to flex in connection with "protecting MT's", i.e., sales tax, licensing fees, ceu requirements.

4.would love to be recognized by other medical professionals as someone who is knowledagble, educated and well informed. Not just someone who rubs people in spas! Sometimes there are instances where we have more education than some nurses but don't earn anywhere close to what they do. It would be great to be compensated accordingly. WE offer such a benefit but the medical world is fearfully of this because they think they will loose money. If they truly only knew that we could benefit them and their patients. WE all need to work together for the health and lively hood of our people of the world!

5.My Pet Peeve is that some massage schools promote massage therapy as a way to earn $65 an hour, and don't provide the information on good business practices, ethics, self-care. And that newbies should realize that they are new to the field - and to find a mentor, and not think they have all the knowledge they need to have to call themselves 'specialized' in a particular field.

And finally (for today) the survey shows we mostly went into this field to HELP people and it is also the comment that most people are making in their personal comments. They love what they do!!

Once I have more results, I will post more information!

Thanks again!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on November 6, 2009 at 1:37pm

My point is the reference, by Carl, that these entry level tests are a joke. They are not. CA has resisted licensure to the point they are loosing parts of their scope of practice. I'm sure licensed instructors that have more than 100 hours of school like many therapist do in CA, would have little problem with these entry level exams.

I do not think the tier systems are needed either. Carl's state has to use this system to continue practicing.

I am not for advanced certification until it is explained a lot more. But I am in favor of standards and licensure.
Gloria Coppola said:

I don't it necessarily that they are afraid to take them. I disagree.
I just think people are fed up on different levels. I hear things from alot of MT's in my teaching travels too!

Many of us are mainly concerned with yet another fee...for what?
Some of these people are extremely intelligent and talented.

Mike Hinkle said:

The only folks calling our existing massage therapy exams jokes are the folks afraid to take them. They are the same folks allowing CAs Scope of Practice to be whittled on to this point. It will continue, because they can not understand this simple information.
Carl W. Brown said:

You are so right. Trying to set a single BOK of all of bodywork just won't work. We need to base massage on Swedish and have a based Swedish BOK for entry level relaxation work and a second standard for therapeutic massage. Lumping all on bodywork into massage is why the NCB and MBLEx tests are a joke.

http://www.massagetoday.com/massagepoll/03archive/10_03.php

I also think that we need to separate basic massage from therapeutic massage. Not everyone does therapeutic massage and the public needs to know the difference. They are two different services. If you don’t work on clients in street clothes or want to call your work massage you at least need to master basic Swedish. If you want to do Swedish based therapy you need and additional set of skills. I believe we can set real standards for these because you have a consistent set of requires skills that can actually be correlated to the performance of each and every practitioner. We also need to make it clear that this standard does not apply to other modalities because they each have their own BOK.

The education must be cost effective in that it all relates to objective performance and we need standards so that you need to pass the standards and hours do not matter.

If you have one standard and train everyone to do therapeutic work, a person doing just spa work will lose their skills. On the other hand they will probably be focusing on doing better relaxation work than you will get from someone doing therapeutic massage.

Gloria Coppola said:

Sharing some of the interesting and valuable comments from the survey. Just letting you know what some people are thinking/feeling. Some of these comments are posted similar on the survey with different wording, so I am not going to post everyone! Thanks for Participating . Keep telling others!

1. We need to unify the profession MTBOK is way off track and needs to be revised. COMTA is in need of overhaul to be complete. Why are we seen as a wish/washy care, because we don't come together and publish research results consistantly. To many therapist charge outlandish prices for "Specialty" massage they are not certified in. Start with Swedish as the base, then only provide and charge for specialty when certified in each modality, there is no consistant way of knowing who actually knows/does what. Physicians do the same thing and there are many law suits that are proving malpractice, this is the next step for massage if we don't clean up first.

2.I would like to see American regulators set standards that elevate this profession. I think it is not ok just to set standards that allow people to squeek by. Instead, I would like to see robustly trained therapist entering the field. They would then move the profession forward. More alliances with main stream education is also criticle. The physiotherapist have demonstated that issuing a degree that allows them to work toward Masters and PhD status has really elevated their credibility. A diploma just does not hold water in the world. Our practitoners must be granted the right to higher education with in our field..

3.I'd like to see a national plan for all massage therapists as opposed to each state having its own regulations, a national organization that would have muscles to flex in connection with "protecting MT's", i.e., sales tax, licensing fees, ceu requirements.

4.would love to be recognized by other medical professionals as someone who is knowledagble, educated and well informed. Not just someone who rubs people in spas! Sometimes there are instances where we have more education than some nurses but don't earn anywhere close to what they do. It would be great to be compensated accordingly. WE offer such a benefit but the medical world is fearfully of this because they think they will loose money. If they truly only knew that we could benefit them and their patients. WE all need to work together for the health and lively hood of our people of the world!

5.My Pet Peeve is that some massage schools promote massage therapy as a way to earn $65 an hour, and don't provide the information on good business practices, ethics, self-care. And that newbies should realize that they are new to the field - and to find a mentor, and not think they have all the knowledge they need to have to call themselves 'specialized' in a particular field.

And finally (for today) the survey shows we mostly went into this field to HELP people and it is also the comment that most people are making in their personal comments. They love what they do!!

Once I have more results, I will post more information!

Thanks again!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gloria Coppola on November 6, 2009 at 1:41pm

Thanks for explaining!
Yes I do agree there does need to be a baseline for standards . I'm sure many that have not had to follow this will not be open to the change at first.

The only thing we can depend on is....change! For the better!

Mike Hinkle said:

My point is the reference, by Carl, that these entry level tests are a joke. They are not. CA has resisted licensure to the point they are loosing parts of their scope of practice. I'm sure licensed instructors that have more than 100 hours of school like many therapist do in CA, would have little problem with these entry level exams.

I do not think the tier systems are needed either. Carl's state has to use this system to continue practicing.

I am not for advanced certification until it is explained a lot more. But I am in favor of standards and licensure.
Gloria Coppola said:

I don't it necessarily that they are afraid to take them. I disagree.
I just think people are fed up on different levels. I hear things from alot of MT's in my teaching travels too!

Many of us are mainly concerned with yet another fee...for what?
Some of these people are extremely intelligent and talented.

Mike Hinkle said:

The only folks calling our existing massage therapy exams jokes are the folks afraid to take them. They are the same folks allowing CAs Scope of Practice to be whittled on to this point. It will continue, because they can not understand this simple information.
Carl W. Brown said:

You are so right. Trying to set a single BOK of all of bodywork just won't work. We need to base massage on Swedish and have a based Swedish BOK for entry level relaxation work and a second standard for therapeutic massage. Lumping all on bodywork into massage is why the NCB and MBLEx tests are a joke.

http://www.massagetoday.com/massagepoll/03archive/10_03.php

I also think that we need to separate basic massage from therapeutic massage. Not everyone does therapeutic massage and the public needs to know the difference. They are two different services. If you don’t work on clients in street clothes or want to call your work massage you at least need to master basic Swedish. If you want to do Swedish based therapy you need and additional set of skills. I believe we can set real standards for these because you have a consistent set of requires skills that can actually be correlated to the performance of each and every practitioner. We also need to make it clear that this standard does not apply to other modalities because they each have their own BOK.

The education must be cost effective in that it all relates to objective performance and we need standards so that you need to pass the standards and hours do not matter.

If you have one standard and train everyone to do therapeutic work, a person doing just spa work will lose their skills. On the other hand they will probably be focusing on doing better relaxation work than you will get from someone doing therapeutic massage.

Gloria Coppola said:

Sharing some of the interesting and valuable comments from the survey. Just letting you know what some people are thinking/feeling. Some of these comments are posted similar on the survey with different wording, so I am not going to post everyone! Thanks for Participating . Keep telling others!

1. We need to unify the profession MTBOK is way off track and needs to be revised. COMTA is in need of overhaul to be complete. Why are we seen as a wish/washy care, because we don't come together and publish research results consistantly. To many therapist charge outlandish prices for "Specialty" massage they are not certified in. Start with Swedish as the base, then only provide and charge for specialty when certified in each modality, there is no consistant way of knowing who actually knows/does what. Physicians do the same thing and there are many law suits that are proving malpractice, this is the next step for massage if we don't clean up first.

2.I would like to see American regulators set standards that elevate this profession. I think it is not ok just to set standards that allow people to squeek by. Instead, I would like to see robustly trained therapist entering the field. They would then move the profession forward. More alliances with main stream education is also criticle. The physiotherapist have demonstated that issuing a degree that allows them to work toward Masters and PhD status has really elevated their credibility. A diploma just does not hold water in the world. Our practitoners must be granted the right to higher education with in our field..

3.I'd like to see a national plan for all massage therapists as opposed to each state having its own regulations, a national organization that would have muscles to flex in connection with "protecting MT's", i.e., sales tax, licensing fees, ceu requirements.

4.would love to be recognized by other medical professionals as someone who is knowledagble, educated and well informed. Not just someone who rubs people in spas! Sometimes there are instances where we have more education than some nurses but don't earn anywhere close to what they do. It would be great to be compensated accordingly. WE offer such a benefit but the medical world is fearfully of this because they think they will loose money. If they truly only knew that we could benefit them and their patients. WE all need to work together for the health and lively hood of our people of the world!

5.My Pet Peeve is that some massage schools promote massage therapy as a way to earn $65 an hour, and don't provide the information on good business practices, ethics, self-care. And that newbies should realize that they are new to the field - and to find a mentor, and not think they have all the knowledge they need to have to call themselves 'specialized' in a particular field.

And finally (for today) the survey shows we mostly went into this field to HELP people and it is also the comment that most people are making in their personal comments. They love what they do!!

Once I have more results, I will post more information!

Thanks again!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl W. Brown on November 6, 2009 at 4:13pm

Mike, the massage laws in most states are doing to me exactly what the Massage Parlor Law was doing in SC. It is make my type of work illegal. I how it is hard to understand for most MTs precisely because they are trained in Swedish massage. My work takes a totally different way of thinking and does not use any Swedish training. It was very hard for me to overcome my massage training. Here in CA we can still train and practice openly but if I were to move to another state I might have to operate underground because of the massage laws. Yes I understand that the laws are better that previous state and local laws.

However I think that we need to improve these laws for two reasons. One to allow people like me to work legally and probably as important to improve the quality of the standards in that massage industry. It should be a win-win situation. To do so we need to start developing standards that truly reflect what we do and objectively reflect actual performance.

I have done both types of work and can understand that it is impossible to do both. You can train the mind to think in two different ways at the same time. As my skills increased I lost my ability to really do Swedish. I hope that you can take it on faith that it is like talking about energy work to someone who has never experienced it. They have no concept of what it is like. Would you be happy if the new massage laws make energy work illegal?

I think that if we follow the lead of people like Keith and Gloria who are looking at real standards that we will both understand how to cost effectively train people to do conventional massage but it will give us a better feeling of what is not massage and needs different standards.

If I am training to be a psychologist or counselor I need to develop sensitivity to people but if I want to be a surgeon or dentist thouse skills get in the way of going in and just cutting. Speaking multiple languages affect your speech. When you think in a different language or multiple languages some of the results are translated speech which is different. I found it especially frustrating if the language has no concept for what you want to say. There are people who want the entire world to speak English but if you did that there are so many different ideas that would be lost. We mourn when different species become extinct, why not also mourn when different forms of bodywork also become extinct and it may be the one you need later in life.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on November 6, 2009 at 4:47pm

Carl, What you aren't putting into the equation is the fact, everybody isn't you either. There are therapists out there "doing the same work" that are able to still do Swedish as well. Because you can not adapt does not mean the country should not go forward.

You will be grandfathered in as you know. If you end up doing something that for whatever reason the powers that are (state, association or whomever) decide you should not be doing, that will be between ya'll. You will have to decide to follow the rules or not. But to hold back this entire profession because things shouldn't change, according to you, is wrong.

Carl, energy work will not be made illegal. Carl, energy work will not be made illegal. When you see that posted somewhere, not your opinion of what might lead to it, posted fact, let me know. I will be at your side to defend it. But if the BOK does determine that energy work can be and decides to include it in the BOK., you go back to school and follow the rules.

Carl, I am trying to save history, modalities and all info I can. Start writing the Book Of Energy Modalities and I will make sure, it will not be forgotten. There really isn't a chance of this happening.

PS Carl, if you are practicing something other than an accepted massage, and using massage as a cover to do it, aren't you breaking the law there? Is your specific modality listed as certified and legal? What modality are you doing? Just called Energy?



Carl W. Brown said:

Mike, the massage laws in most states are doing to me exactly what the Massage Parlor Law was doing in SC. It is make my type of work illegal. I how it is hard to understand for most MTs precisely because they are trained in Swedish massage. My work takes a totally different way of thinking and does not use any Swedish training. It was very hard for me to overcome my massage training. Here in CA we can still train and practice openly but if I were to move to another state I might have to operate underground because of the massage laws. Yes I understand that the laws are better that previous state and local laws.

However I think that we need to improve these laws for two reasons. One to allow people like me to work legally and probably as important to improve the quality of the standards in that massage industry. It should be a win-win situation. To do so we need to start developing standards that truly reflect what we do and objectively reflect actual performance.

I have done both types of work and can understand that it is impossible to do both. You can train the mind to think in two different ways at the same time. As my skills increased I lost my ability to really do Swedish. I hope that you can take it on faith that it is like talking about energy work to someone who has never experienced it. They have no concept of what it is like. Would you be happy if the new massage laws make energy work illegal?

I think that if we follow the lead of people like Keith and Gloria who are looking at real standards that we will both understand how to cost effectively train people to do conventional massage but it will give us a better feeling of what is not massage and needs different standards.

If I am training to be a psychologist or counselor I need to develop sensitivity to people but if I want to be a surgeon or dentist thouse skills get in the way of going in and just cutting. Speaking multiple languages affect your speech. When you think in a different language or multiple languages some of the results are translated speech which is different. I found it especially frustrating if the language has no concept for what you want to say. There are people who want the entire world to speak English but if you did that there are so many different ideas that would be lost. We mourn when different species become extinct, why not also mourn when different forms of bodywork also become extinct and it may be the one you need later in life.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Eric Grant on November 6, 2009 at 5:19pm

Mike Hinkle said:

The only folks calling our existing massage therapy exams jokes are the folks afraid to take them. They are the same folks allowing CAs Scope of Practice to be whittled on to this point.

Mike, this is an incorrect statement of CA law. I am truly sorry that you have so much difficulty with our law, but will keep trying to clarify as necessary. The election was made, by both AMTA-CA and ABMP, to leave the scope of practice in CA implicit rather than to have it explicit and also let it explicitly be narrowed. I believe that this decision is to both organizations' credit. According to Ralph Stephens, this is not the case in a number of other states where laws have narrowed scope of practice (I often don't agree with Ralph's assessment of causality, but he does at times make some worthwhile observations of situation).

As to the exams, I don't call them jokes, but I also don't necessarily believe that they are predictive of ability to practice. They are, from my point of view, a reasonable verification that a person spent sufficient time in school, with both body and mind present, to be able to recognize correct facts in an academic context. In that sense, they are both reliable and valid (psychometrics), although not particularly useful beyond such verification. They also, as pointed out by educational psychologist Howard Gardner, likely eliminate some that are capable of practice but not so great at academic contexts. The larger context of internal organization of information into a usable from is well addressed in a recent book by Frederick Reif, as also are the failures of such conveyance. The acquisition of expertise by accumulating patterns of experience and changes in perception are discussed in Streetlights & Shadows, by Gary Klein, which is an interesting read in any case. And yes, I did pass the NCTMB back in 1993.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on November 6, 2009 at 5:34pm

Let's start over again. Carl said these tests were a joke and I am glad you concur they are not. I did not say everyone in CA was afraid to, or have not taken the exams.

Read the sentence again: The only folks calling our existing massage therapy exams jokes are the folks afraid to take them.

Keith, I did not hear you say these tests were jokes. This is for Carl, who brags of having 100 hours of actual training and yet won't set (?) hours to what he expects new therapists to go through in school. Then he expects them to have as many hours as a two year program and at the teacher's discretion when you finish. But don't try to tell him he has to go back to school, it might mess up his energy work. He just playing both sides. He can call it a joke because he does not have to take it. I think, he is afraid to. Thus my statement.

Keith Eric Grant said:

Mike Hinkle said:

The only folks calling our existing massage therapy exams jokes are the folks afraid to take them. They are the same folks allowing CAs Scope of Practice to be whittled on to this point.

Mike, this is an incorrect statement of CA law. I am truly sorry that you have so much difficulty with our law, but will keep trying to clarify as necessary. The election was made, by both AMTA-CA and ABMP, to leave the scope of practice in CA implicit rather than to have it explicit and also let it explicitly be narrowed. I believe that this decision is to both organizations' credit. According to Ralph Stephens, this is not the case in a number of other states where laws have narrowed scope of practice (I often don't agree with Ralph's assessment of causality, but he does at times make some worthwhile observations of situation).

As to the exams, I don't call them jokes, but I also don't necessarily believe that they are predictive of ability to practice. They are, from my point of view, a reasonable verification that a person spent sufficient time in school, with both body and mind present, to be able to recognize correct facts in an academic context. In that sense, they are both reliable and valid (psychometrics), although not particularly useful beyond such verification. They also, as pointed out by educational psychologist Howard Gardner, likely eliminate some that are capable of practice but not so great at academic contexts. The larger context of internal organization of information into a usable from is well addressed in a recent book by Frederick Reif, as also are the failures of such conveyance. The acquisition of expertise by accumulating patterns of experience and changes in perception are discussed in Streetlights & Shadows, by Gary Klein, which is an interesting read in any case. And yes, I did pass the NCTMB back in 1993.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Eric Grant on November 7, 2009 at 12:17am

Mike Hinkle said:

Let's start over again. Carl said these tests were a joke and I am glad you concur they are not. I did not say everyone in CA was afraid to, or have not taken the exams.

Read the sentence again: The only folks calling our existing massage therapy exams jokes are the folks afraid to take them.

Mike, Carl is only one person. Nor, as I additionally posted under the BOK discussion tonight, is the California legislative situation or history so simple. And, while I do not call the exams "a joke", I certainly do question their professed relationship to determination of competency. The idea that people question the use of such exams mainly from fear of them is erroneous. My estimation is that Carl, for example, having decades of technical background, could pass an exam as easily as I did back when. I suspect that it is more that, those who have seen industrial competency management, realize that the use and format don't support the claims made. The exams verify short-term memorization and ability to recognize correct answers of facts related to massage in a way that is valid (it really is about massage factoids) and reliable (differences in test results aren't overly noisy). If you want an independent verification that a person attended massage school (or was a good independent study), the tests provide that. It is far less clear if they provide anything else other than a target for curricula.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on November 7, 2009 at 1:20am

Keith you too say: (plural) I certainly do question their professed relationship to determination of competency and only site your review/objection of the NCB test, nothing of the MBLEx.

The states that sponsored, accepted and adopted these tests have lawyers that have reviewed and approved their use. They are set up to determine competency. States Massage Boards across the nation are using them for just that. It is what is being used. The lure of the perfect test method will continue. But today, states say, these tests are how we are going to make this determination.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page