Against NCBTMB's proposed Advanced Certification Exam

Comment

Comment by Angela Palmier on November 30, 2009 at 11:56am

Thanks for the post Les. For clarification, the survey was developed using model surveys that many other associations have utilized to assess member needs. Where there any specific questions that you would have liked to see on the survey?

As for the "but no it did not make a difference one way or the other" comment---that is unfortunate, and we are actively pursuing opportunties for it to make a real tangible difference---one that we can all feel and benefit from directly.

As far as "Should we have the Certification"----if you look at the variety of allied health professions out there----I'm not seeing any that do not have certification. They may look different than what we, in the massage therapy profession view as certification, however, initiatives such as Advanced and Specialty Certifications will bring us more in line with those professions as well. If we want a seat at the table, we have to establish ourselves firmly....certification is a key component to that "seat."

This conversation is fantastic!!!!

Comment by Les Slaughter on November 30, 2009 at 11:41am

Just joined. I had a survey sent to me, because I am Cert. Nat. (however I did not need to be), I beleived that it would help me being Nationally Certified, but no it did not make a difference one way or the other. Now back to the survey. The questions in the survey were like all other survey's and polls, slanted to the direction of the asker, you know what I mean! Not one of the questions asked "Should we have the Certification"? I beleive they did not want to know the answer to that question!!

Comment by Gloria Coppola on November 19, 2009 at 11:17pm

David, Would you please ask your staff to take the "massage survey"? Thanks! The link is on the forum discussion of the main page.

I have also passed on Elizabeth's email

Comment by Gloria Coppola on November 19, 2009 at 10:34pm

David!
You should post this on the discussion forum so everyone can see it!
I have already sent a letter to NCB.

Comment by Angela Palmier on November 19, 2009 at 6:06pm

Thanks so much for the insight. This really helps me understand your concerns. I understand that while we haven't been formally introduced, you may not know this about me, or Chris---(people who do please chime in!) that the two of us will not touch, be involved in, support, endorse, or otherwise affiliate with ANYTHING that is not supportive of this profession, lacking in integrity or character. We also don't bail when the going gets tough. No one is going to argue that there have been areas of concern with regard to NCB in the past. In fact, in the press release announcing that Chris and I were working with NCB, I was quoted as saying "The NCB of the past is missing in action..." and it's true. I also realize that it will take time, solid and consistent action for people to realize that. I also realize that no matter what NCB does, there will always be people who will not be convinced that things are truly different. I'm sorry for that--mostly sorry for the profession because I've personally made mistakes in the past and if I were judged on those for the rest of my life, well, you know what I mean.
One GREAT thing about this conversation and the many others like it is that there is communication! I remember a time when it felt like there was a big disconnect between NCB and the industry. I think it's fantastic that the transparency, communication and commitment to continue that is happening there. There is an actual blog now-which you have recently posted on--unfiltered, uncensored and out there for discussion. Isn't that a positive step forward?

The list of names that you mention (Rose, Burman, Sweeney, etc.) are very respected individuals with a long history of serving this profession. I have quite a bit of respect for those people as well. I respect their opinions and love the fact that they express them. At the same time, I do not necessarily agree with them-but I do respect their right to express them.

I'm interested in hearing more about the statement "we are being presented with a fantastic opportunity to course-correct our profession that has been hell-bent on medical recognition at the expense of a full-range of practices that we can treasure..." I'm not sure that those two things have to be mutually exclusive. An advanced certification may not necessarily exclude the somatic educative approaches or mind/body approaches that you mention. I'm thinking this may be something like how instructors are given a course description and learning objectives---they are required to ensure that those objectives are met, but HOW they meet them is at their discretion. No matter how "clinical" the massage approach is, you simply cannot eliminate or exclude what makes our profession great----those very approaches that you mention. Further, I'm not sure that the mind/body or somatic approaches get the credit they deserve as many people who "claim" to have the skills to practice those very approaches attend a 3 hour seminar and advertise it as a specialization.

I understand your desire to maintain confidentiality of your sources, however for the sake of the impact that your/their concerns could have should they be correct, I strongly urge you to share those concerns with NCB-either directly or confidentially. Go straight to the top if you need to---I'll set up the call!

I'm also wondering, if perhaps the word and/or generalization of "advanced" is really the problem here. Advanced, at this point is a bit subjective, however I'm wondering if this doesn't support the fact that it does need some definition? An LPN is a nurse that can __________, the "Advanced" version of LPN is an RN who can do __________. Then there are the specialties---and I think that this is where many of your concerns would be addressed. In those fields, there are many different specializations. Maybe this is where some of the specific mind/body, somatic approaches that you referenced could be addressed?

I really appreciate this opportunity to discuss and quite frankly, this sort of dialogue is the type of interaction that can truly break down walls, move organizations forward and build bridges. You have given so much time and talent to this profession, and while at this point it doesn't appear that you're supporting this program, I hope that you will continue to engage this process with an open mind. The massage therapy profession is so unique in that it offers a place for everyone to pursue whatever path they choose---and 10 years later, they can choose another, and another, and another. As the "old" therapists, we have to make sure that we allow for that type of choice for all of those coming behind us-even if it isn't something that WE are interested in.

Respectfully,

Angela Palmier

Comment by Angela Palmier on November 19, 2009 at 3:24pm

As a fellow bodyworker/massage therapist, massage educator and affiliated industry contractor, I think it's appropriate for me to respond to this "Open Letter and Call to Action." For purposes of transparency, I'd like to include that Resource ETC was contracted by NCB to provide Industry Relations services in September of this year and as "Industry Relations" issues have come forward, we have promptly and without filter, provided them with the information and have been very pleased that they have responded quickly and appropriately. That being said, there are several questions that come up for me as I read this "Call to Action" and hope to get some clarity so that we (Chris Alvarado and I) can reflect information back...(please excuse the length of this post!!!)
Your statement, ".....the proposed advanced certification exam seems to be more necessitated as an income stream than a mandated credential...."
My question: To what are you basing this assumption? I read your assertion that MBLEx exams are cutting into "NCBTMBs market", but I'm not sure that a direct correlation between the increase in MBLEx exams would directly relate to anyone's market share---the number of exams given over the past few years are increasing as more states have licensure, so, in fact the "market" has grown, correct?
Your statement: "...From the response I've gotten from everyone except NCBTMB...."
My question: Has ABMP, AMTA or any other organization publicly stated that they do not support Advanced Certification, or NCB's involvement in it? That would directly conflict with statements made by both of those associations/organizations in the past. I did make an assumption (and you know what they say about assuming ;), that you were referring to specific organizations. Is that the case? I suppose the real question is "Who is everyone?"
Your statement "......and the majority of advanced therapists certainly are not nationally certified"
My question "By making that statement, it would infer that you have an idea, or definition of what advanced therapists are, what their affiliation is, what their scope is, etc. Do you have that information available to share? Is this your opinion?"
Your statement: "Many therapists, teachers and school owners have serious reservations about the flawed psychometrics on which NCBTMB is claiming to base their decisions:
My question: This is probably the single most statement of concern for me---Pearson Vue psychometricians are providing these services for both MBLEx and NCB exams, as well as the advanced certification exam development. Does this mean that you believe that Pearson Vue is not qualified, or uses flawed methods?
Your statement: "That NCBTMB should be the arbiter of who is advanced and who is not is very debatable"
My question: Do you have a suggestion of who the arbiter of advanced certification should be? It is my understanding that the profession decides the definition, and not NCB. Is there something I'm missing?
Your statement: "Requiring to be certified as advanced that one be already Nationally Certified.."
My question: Has NCB posted that this was going to be required? (Again, assuming here) but I would imagine that National Certification may and most likely will be A pathway to or a step, or something to qualify, however given the multitude of "advanced-type" courses out there, such as those offered by your school, I would imagine that those pathways would be considered as well.
Your statement: "If we end up with a group of advanced practitioners who are not eligible due to arbitrary requirement of National Certification vs. a group who are eligible..."
My question: Again, it appears that you have eligibility requirements for advanced practitioners in mind. If so, can you please share?
Your statement: "There is basically no such way in such exams to demonstrate practical skills"
My question: Is it your assertion that for someone to demonstrate practical skill, that a written exam does not provide any level of competency? I'm wondering as the discussion with regard to distance education by several reputable massage educators such as Erik Dalton, Tom Meyers, etc., would offer a different opinion. I think this is a great discussion item and would love to hear more about this.
Your statement: "NCBTMB has not demonstrated thorough research nor industry backing for how to define the advanced knowledge an advanced practitioner should have."
My question: Other than the psychometrically valid steps that have been offered by Pearson Vue, the responses from the needs assessment, the future JTA that will be forthcoming, do you have any further suggestions or is there anything else that would satisfy your concern with regard to research or industry backing?
Your statement: "The emphasis of the proposed exam apparently would be orthopedic massage"
My question: What are you basing this opinion on? Was something published that indicated that the advanced credential would be focused on orthopedic massage?
Your statement: "....the majority of advanced practitioners practice holistically...."
My question: Again, you appear to have an idea of a advanced practitioner definition in order the make the statement that most of them practice holistically.
Your statement: "....while also utilizing advanced skills to prevent disease....."
My question: Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but clearly you have an opinion on what defines an advanced practitioner, advanced skills, etc. Please share those!!!!
Your statement: "Advanced Massage Therapists largely are complementary health-care practitioners, not just allopathic disease-treatment specialists."
My question. Excluding the "advanced massage therapists" designation, as I am in no position personally to define what that is, there is no question that the designation of "complementary" certainly applies to massage therapists. What I wonder is, if given the opportunity, would more of them choose to work in an allopathic environment? One of the major blocks for massage therapists to enjoy the various opportunities in an integrated healthcare system is in many ways because we cannot show physicians, hospitals, third party reimbursers, federal health care programs, etc., what our skills, training, etc. are simply by a "licensed" or "certified" credential. While we can satisfy a states requirement for entry level, we cannot clearly articulate to the larger public what, in addition, we can offer. When you open the phone book looking for a doctor, you don't just see MD---you see oncologists, radiologists, etc. Do you think that it would be helpful for the public, legislators, employers, etc., to know that if they want to utilize massage therapy services as a tool for treating a specific problem there would be a way to clearly identify them?
Your statement: "....the opinions of a select minority whom you have preferred to survey."
My question: I'm not sure what you are basing this assertion on. The needs assessment survey was posted not only on the NCB website, but on the AMTA website as well---reaching over 148,000--I believe ABMP also planned to post it to their site as well? Laura Allen and her blogs, this massageprofessionals.com arena was also posting links--and certainly many conversations in other mediums such as Facebook, etc., carried the information and the response was huge----many of which were not certificants at all. I'm wondering if you were aware of this?

So sorry to take up so much space here. I'm sure I've violated just about every single rule regarding length of blog responses, but as you can see, I'm very concerned about, and committed to ensuring that the industry perspective is heard. I'm responding to this blog as a peer--former school owner, committed massage therapist, and educator, just like yourself. Talking WITH people and not AT them is something that I value very highly. I appreciate your many concerns and I assure you as the responses come in to your post---and the responses that will be generated from my response will absolutely be considered, unfiltered and heard. Thank you, Mr. Lauterstein for your dedicated service to the Massage Therapy Profession, your continuing support and recognition of advanced massage training and advanced massage certification courses, etc. Your stature and history are not lost on me.
Very Respectfully Submitted,
Angela Palmier

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page