The NCBTMB has just released their Needs Assessment Survey Report, a 15-page document that can be accessed here. The main purpose of this survey was to determine how massage therapists feel about the NCB’s plan to offer an advanced certification exam. In total, 6, 883 massage therapists responded to the survey, with 80% of those answering at least four questions. It would seem to me that which four questions were answered is of relevance, and assuming that it wasn’t the same four for everyone, that could significantly skew the results.
I clarified with Elizabeth Langston, the NCB’s Director of Exam Development, that AMTA and ABMP had helped spread the word about this survey (as did I; I posted it all over the Internet), with the result that 25% of the respondents are not now, nor have they ever been, certificants of the NCB.
Strangely, 19% of the respondents claim to have both the NCTM and the NCTMB certifications. Since TM is included in the TMB certification, it’s beyond me why anyone would pay the expense of having both. I fear that’s just an indication of how little new certificants (less than one 4-year period) actually know about certification. It’s been my experience that a lot of people just pay the money and take the test and really don’t know any details about what it means. Certainly there are thousands out there who don’t know the difference in certification and licensure, and I see the concrete evidence of that every single day.
70% of the respondents considered themselves to be advanced practitioners, and yet 45% of the participants have been in the profession less than two years. Apparently it doesn’t take some people that long to start considering themselves to be advanced. And yet, nearly 12% of those who have been in practice 6-10 years, don’t classify themselves as advanced. There’s something a little wrong with that picture.
According to the survey, 52% would like to see advanced certification that is centered around the advanced knowledge of body sciences and skills that are outcome-based; 36% would like to see advanced certifications in a specific modality, and 12% would like to see advanced certifications centered around type of practice setting (clinical, spa, etc.)
That adds up to 100%, and I have a serious problem with that. Why? When this project started, I threw it out there to all my social networks and discussion boards and asked for comments, which I made sure got forwarded to the NCBTMB. The overwhelming majority were negative in tone, with the biggest criticism by far being that it was just another way for the NCB to make money.
I’d also like to point out that all skills, whether they’re good or bad, effective or not, have an outcome. Determining the desired outcome is the crucial piece of the puzzle. Even more crucial, the MTBOK has not yet released the entry level minimums, so how can you determine what advanced outcomes are before you determine what the entry level outcomes are? And I want to point out, the NCBTMB is a participant in the MTBOK. I personally made a plea to them months ago not to jump the gun by throwing an exam out there before the MTBOK is released. So far, they haven’t, but I’m wondering if it’s waiting in the wings. That would be a big mistake.
Sorry, folks, but I don’t think there’s any remote chance that out of almost 7,000 people, some of them didn’t have negative things to say about the survey, or the need (or lack of) for advanced certification. According to the introductory remarks by Mountain Measurement, Inc, the firm that prepared the report, “respondents that provided invalid or incomplete responses were not included in the calculations.” Apparently that includes the complainers and the naysayers.
This is actually the first analysis of a survey I’ve ever seen that did not include a copy of the actual survey itself. A survey that is deliberately constructed to focus on the good, and ignore the bad and the ugly, is worse than no survey at all. On the other hand, it could be that the people who are negative about advanced certification just chose not to answer at all. Maybe only the shiny happy people answered it to start with.
The most telling thing to me in this whole thing: Respondents were asked to identify the top two criteria for pursuing advanced certification, and then are given three choices, one of which is current possession of certification. If certification is the benchmark for an advanced practitioner, it cannot be the vehicle for entry-level licensure at the same time.
My own opinion of this is that if you assume that if the responses were 100% accurate, and the data is 100% accurate, then the NCBTMB has just given the strongest argument so far for their getting out of the entry-level licensing business, and I’m relatively certain that was not their intent.
Peace & Prosperity,
Laura Allen
January 20th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I know there were some negative comments because I completed the entire survey and I had some negative input. I wonder anytime I see 100% positive comments and noooooo negative or constructive criticism. I mistrust everything in the info at that point.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
I can’t comment on the report because I haven’t read it yet, but 6883 shiny happy people re NCBTMB? I guess none of them are on Facebook, huh?
January 20th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Interesting report. First the good news: education was identified by all constituencies as the most important criterion for advanced certification. Now the challenge: what kind of education, what measure of quality, education by whose standard(s)? Yes, the BOK project is not done, so there is no baseline; but assume it was complete and, in an ideal world, broadly agreed to–what kind(s) of “advanced” education would be appropriate? I ask because if the profession (through its professional associations) does not overtly endorse the only massage-specific, USDE-recognized specialized accreditor for entry-level education and training programs, how can they endorse “advanced” education? From my perspective, until accreditation of education and training programs is required in the field, there is no useful measure of either “entry level” or “advanced” education.
A few observations on the report:
1. “Email invitations to participate in the 2009 Advanced Certification Needs Assessment Survey were sent to massage professionals throughout the field.” I got one. I completed it. I am not a massage practitioner. Did my responses count? Or were mine among those disgarded as “invalid” or “incomplete”?
2. “The professional characteristics of survey participants covered a wide variety of experiences in the field and included 4,797 individuals that [sic]identified themselves as advanced practitioners.” As Laura notes above, “advanced practitioner” were self-identified with no real common characteristics. It’s kind of a useless category.
3. “Respondents that [sic] provided invalid or incomplete responses were not included in the calculations.” What made a response “invalid” or “incomplete”? Why were “incomplete” responses disgarded; sometimes an incomplete response means the respondent had nothing to say about it: the question made no sense, the question was poorly worded, etc. Examining the “incompletes” (crostabs or some sort of analysis of variance) may offer useful information. If this category of respondents was significant (it seems to be at least 1,400 respondents), I’d wonder about why the responses were incomplete. They started and..then what?
As a report, it is clearly one designed to promote an organizational agenda. As a complete report of the study, it is an incomplete analysis. But what do I know? I’m not a massage therapist?
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I’d like to thank Laura, John Goss, and the other posters for taking an interest in the study, reading the report, and posting comments here. I am intrigued by the questions that the report raised and excited to have such a dynamic forum in which to further the interpretation. In that vein, I’d like to shed some light on some of the comments, issues and questions that were raised.
1.) Online survey software prohibits users from providing invalid responses, but the phrase “invalid and incomplete” is commonly used to describe unusable data. For the Needs Assessment Survey, there were not any invalid responses but there were incomplete responses. Mountain Measurement simply eliminated missing or blank responses prior to calculating the percentage of respondents answering with a specific option.
2.) The purpose of the survey question about criteria for Advanced Certification was to probe the prerequisites for pursuit of an advanced credential, not the prerequisites for the certification itself. Respondents were asked “What criteria should be required for Advanced Certification eligibility?” and given seven choices (not three), plus an “Other” option. Subjects that provided the response “current NCBTMB certification” are likely to have chosen this response because they believe that advanced practitioners must be able to demonstrate competency at the entry-level before moving on. In addition, they believe that certified entry-level practitioners should be able to evolve their competency in any manner that suits them (books, seminars, discussions with other practitioners, and/or their own observation and experimentation in practice).
3.)The survey invitations were sent to massage professionals. This included practitioners, educators, regulators, and other individuals in the greater massage therapy circle. The fact that 25% do not hold a current certification provided insight into the composition of the respondents. However, the survey did not probe for more information about these individuals. Therefore, all we can say is that this group is a mix of practitioners that chose not to pursue certification, practitioners that failed to obtain a certification, formerly certified practitioners that let their certification lapse, and non-practitioners such as educators, administrators, and regulators. Keep in mind that many of the educators, administrators, and regulators were not included in this 25% since they possess a current certification.
4.)I too found it interesting that about 70% considered themselves to be advanced practitioners. Of those, over 90% reported having been in practice for at least two years. Contrary to Laura’s opinion, based on their experience alone, I find the group reporting to be advanced practitioners quite realistic.
Thanks again for reading and for making such great comments. Although I didn’t agree with all of them, they certainly gave me some alternative perspectives.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Hi, Laura.
Thanks for going through the report and providing your own analysis, and thanks to Brian Bontempo, PhD of Mountain Measurement for providing some responses.
I would like to let you know that a new blog posting is up on our website (http://ncbtmb.typepad.com/advcert/) and that your readers may enjoy contributing.
I’d also like to assure Mr. Goss that his responses were included. Within the open ended responses, there were people with negative comments. There were also positive comments and a number of ideas and suggestions. I can assure you that all of these open ended and subjective responses were read and reviewed by the Advanced Certification Task Force and NCBTMB.
All the Best,
Liz
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Thank you, Brian, and now on to the points that you did not address:
1) Do you dispute that which four questions were answered could affect the results? Would you explain that to us?
2)Do you, or the NCB, want to ascertain that 19% of those people do in fact hold both of those credentials, the NCTM and the MCTMB? Should be a simple enough thing for the NCB to run a report on how many actually possess both of those.
3)Pardon my mistake on the 3 vs 7 possible choices, and as I stated, this is the first time I’ve ever seen a survey report that didn’t contain the actual survey or at least state the questions verbatim on the page with the explanation. As it has been a couple of months since we all took the survey, how about refreshing our memory by printing the actual questions here, if you don’t mind. We’d appreciate it.
I’m not distressed that 25% of the people aren’t or never have been NCB. I assumed that those people were either in the profession or support industries in some way. The NCB never stated you had to be certified to answer the survey.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:19 pm
How do you know my responses were included (unless all responses were included)–otherwise one would need to question the confidentiality of the survey–and the ethics of making such a statement on a public forum.
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Dr. Goss.
All responses made to specific questions were included, and you had self-identified as a respondent. As Dr. Bontempo explained, “Mountain Measurement simply eliminated missing or blank responses prior to calculating the percentage of respondents answering with a specific option.” If your responses were not blank or missing, they were not eliminated.
Liz
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:05 pm
I have been a massage professional and took the NCB exam in 1992 or 3 and passed with flying colors. I have, however never chosen to renew my certification because when I contacted NCB about renewal they could not find me anywhere in their database. I was standing next to my certificate when I made the call. I have been a massage educator for 15 years and find the song remains the same. Every week I hear from students who have had paperwork lost by the NCB. This is not a freak or uncommon occurrence. I have lots of students who have struggled with them for 15 years now. Many times the NCB simply did not return phone calls or send responses via snail or email. I find it interesting that they want to “shape” our profession but they can’t seem to master what one NCB employee called “menial” office tasks.
I have chosen not to support the NCB and I will continue that mode of operation until someone can tell me what they have actually done positive for my profession. I still contend it is a group of people looking to make money on the backs of hardworking massage therapists. Advanced certification by NCB seems like yet another attempt.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 pm
I do not want this to turn into a debate, but professional research ethics require confidentiality of respondents and their responses be maintained. That I “self-identified” (how, by completing the survey?) as a respondent does not mean I gave permission for that status, or any information regarding what questions I may or may not have answered (if any at all) be revealed in a public forum. Is NCB exempt from the protectuion of human subjects? Is the research firm exempt? Professional ethics apply to all researchers (whether through legislation, regulation, or statements of professional ethics in our respective fields).
But enough of this, since this forum is really meant to discuss the findings.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Who was it that said, “….used statistics (surveys)as a drunken man uses lampposts; for support rather than illumination?” Hmmmm, seems appropriate.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Who was it that said, “… used statistics (surveys)as a drunken man uses lampposts; for support rather than illumination?” Hmmmm, seems appropriate here.
January 28th, 2010 at 4:36 am
Hello Touch Family, There will always be divisions with people. I nearly had a headache reading the interpretations of this anaylyis.
Something so simple became convuluted.
I am a ‘senior’ massage therapist with almost 25 years experience. As a “grandmother” to the profession I tried to stop our state legislation for seven years. I was and am wise enough to know the difference of state and national ‘interference’.
Eventually, I lost out as power, greed and money hungry people won their way. What I don’t understand is that I hold the same license as a medical doctor in our state and am treated with such disrespec; nor do I make their income. What I don’t see as fair is that we are required to have more CEU’s than nurses for far less education. And, I don’t make the money nor respect that they do.
And, what your survey—which I had no knowledge of–doesn’t even address the “heart and hands” of a therapist.
Value? tell me about which is more valuable?
I can tell you that I am still in practice, and still enduring the economic hardship having lost one half of my business, simply because I have not lost my focus of what this profession means.
Humbly, and staying heart-based–with unbeliebvable hands and heart that probably out massage the people who do statistics, Wendy in NC
“Experience massage from a seasoned therapist”
“Healing Bodies with Hands and Heart for over 24 Compassionate Years”