Home

Arguments provided for and against Accreditation

Provides recognition of a practitioner’s training in cognitive and/or behaviour therapy.
Elsewhere in the world cognitive and/or behavioural organisations have developed accreditation processes in order to provide some quality control, and there has been expressed desire for the AACBT to do so too.
Increase in training in cognitive and/or behaviour therapy around the country – so more therapists are participating in brief workshops and then practicing cognitive and/or behaviour therapy without there being any single organisation monitoring/assessing whether these therapists meet any ‘minimum standards in cognitive and/or behaviour therapy).
Other organisations in Australia are considering accrediting practitioners (eg. RACGP).
AACBT is a multi-disciplinary organisation and therefore can be highly inclusive with respect to its membership and accreditation of cognitive and/or behaviour therapists.
AACBT has been discussing this for several years and there appears now to be general consensus among the membership.

This could be costly – both to the organisation and to the members.
Any voluntary accreditation process will require dedicated volunteer members/committee and could be very time consuming for volunteers.
Could create an elitist Association, rather than inclusive organisation.
Any accreditation process changes the ‘interest group’ nature of AACBT, and may require greater between State co-operation, for example, agreement on national membership fees/application forms etc.
It could create an orthodoxy that may not be amenable to change, and the organisation could become very prescriptive.
Accreditation changes the nature of professionalism from initiative and discipline to compliance with external standards.

Shirley Morrissey (Convenor) s.morrissey@griffith.edu.au

Michael Free (Qld) (until July 2004) M.free@griffith.edu.au

Previous Working group Members have also included

Nicole Lee (Qld/Vic), James Bennet Levy (Qld), Tracy Wade (SA)