Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge

Comment

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on October 24, 2009 at 6:00pm

Since the McKinnon Institute program is modular and a valid example, you can can mostly see an example for yourself. The Swedish and Sports/Deep-Tissue certificates combined would be 250 hours. The Swedish alone is 100 hours.

The idea, by the way, was that students would take a module, gain some experience at a basic level of service, and then, with that experience literally in hand, take more modules as their skills and practice needs progressed. In essence, it became a type of mentoring module. Worked pretty well and allowed students the ability for pay-as-you-go learning.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 24, 2009 at 5:34pm

So you are saying, there will no longer be school to learn massage that will cover your ability to do all massages. Now you will continually go back to school to satisfy KSA's to do different modalities?

100 hours is two and one-half weeks. A&P? Basic mechanics? Just Swedish?
What modalities does 250 get you? What do you pay for this 100 hour schooling? How much for 250?

Like I said this was put in place to appease people and I bet advanced modalities will be practiced. This will not work on a national platform.

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on October 24, 2009 at 5:20pm

Mike,

For a given job description, basing curricula on KSA's that are in turn based on the tasks required for the job description provides the most efficient path of training that assures competence. It assures that what is necessary is taught and what is tangential or unrelated to job performance is not taught.

The minimum current California tier is 250 hours, not 100 hours. The 100 hour norm was based on experience of what was required to teach and for students to obtain competence in providing a basic Swedish massage; no more; no less. It did a reasonable job of that. I expect that any current job description would be more extensive and thus take longer to teach. How much longer depends on what extra sets of tasks are included. For a given job description, however, the KSA-based approach is the most specific and thus the most time-effective training to achieve a specified level of competence.

As long as you don't mind having graduates that are not necessarily prepared for practice and that don't have the competence needed for advanced classes, then simply measuring the hours they spend in some classroom will do fine. That isn't about effective training, however, just about setting arbitrary requirements. That is a camp I am not about to join. I care far too much about the effectiveness of what I and others teach and about what students get for their time and money.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 24, 2009 at 4:54pm

Back to square one: I will reserve my judgement about KSA's until someone directly answers the question. My question is: Will they take more or less time to complete? Will schools be 100 hours like CA or 3000 like CANADA?

Somewhere between 250-3000 does not answer the question. If KSA's are wanted. Write them up and figure this out. Till then hours will do fine for me.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 24, 2009 at 4:42pm

1.Think this differs state to state, not sure. But I believe licensing someone would make them responsible.

2. yes they do and can.

3.I don't foresee massage collapsing and being ruined, no matter which course is taken. I think that is what the BOK is trying to do, advance our field.

Comment by Noel Norwick on October 24, 2009 at 2:20pm

Mike:
1. It's my understanding that one cannot sue police or the states for failure to protect individual citizens or even for failure to enforce the "law".

2. Legislators/regulators seem to feel free to lump all manual therapy modalities (except those with a higher medical licensure) under the label of "massage."

3. While it's clearly the nature of the beast to create ever more rules, etc., human history appears to show that, unchecked, this process eventually and inevitably collapses into total ruin for all involved. It would be nice if we could establish something that will convince the majority of practitioners that our field's interests are being advanced rather than that sowing the seeds for its destruction.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 24, 2009 at 1:59pm

Hi Noel,
1. You just reinterated that police weren't doing their jobs under your certification rules, costs should be reflective. I don't know what amount states would be sued for but I bet it would be higher than the public protection costs being implemented.

2. This is why all massage/bodywork/enerywork modalities are not and should not be taught in schools. And yes legislators are concerned with the liability issues first. Certifications can be reached through private sources, therefore keeping variability and innovation.

3. And there will be more. It is the nature of this beast. There is rarely fewer rules applied to any work place. The answer would be to have the medical industry open up a specific occupation for massage therapists. They could set their own medical massage standards and leave the rest of us alone. But I don't see that happening either. The truth is, there is no easy answer to this.

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on October 24, 2009 at 1:50pm

Mike says

"How long it will take students to complete them and what will happen accordingly, if it takes some therapists longer to 'get it'!"

And how is this different than any well-defined curricula for which students must demonstrate competence and pass assessments in order to pass the course? The KSA's change the process of curriculum development to closely match the tasks defined in the job description -- neither substantially more nor substantially less than is needed. They do not, in themselves, change the methods of teaching or assessment. Changes in teaching and assessment methodology and thoroughness might be of benefit, but that is not intrinsically part of creating a set of KSAs from a set of tasks specific to a job description. Again, I would urge you to read this short article by Paula Ashler.

The major change is in understanding exactly what must be taught and how mastering specific things to specified proficiency levels contributes to final abilities to do the "job". It does not radically change the various abilities of students to learn in specific areas nor does it change the consequences of failure to learn or the extra effort that might be required not to fail.

Comment by Noel Norwick on October 24, 2009 at 1:30pm

Mike: My concerns are:
1. "There is more to protecting the public than just "physical harm"." Such protection imposes costs that at some point will be greater than the public benefit (practitioner's & clients' ability/willingness to pay).

2. State regulation of schools - Given the myriad trademarked massage/bodywork/enerywork modalities, it's my experience that state regulators are guided by liability issues to limit variability/innovation.

3. Indeed, I question at what cost might we gain acceptance from the healthcare/medical mainstream. Since the 1960's I have observed a decline in the joy that friends who were successful M.D.s, chiropractors, nurses and physical therapists took from their work and work environment (facilities, paperwork etc.). I have observe many career changes and early retirements because of this.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 24, 2009 at 1:29pm

I understand what they are and why they are. I will save my decision about them until somone figures out, "How long it will take students to complete them and what will happen accordingly, if it takes some therapists longer to 'get it'!"

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• …
• 51
• Next ›
• Page