Letters To The Editor

Dear Editor:

As a colleague of Ann Zito's, I am writing in response to her article, "A House Divided: The Philosophical Split In Therapeutic Recreation " (Illinois Parks & Recreation, January/February 1991, page 21). I have been involved with the National Council for Therapeutic Recreation Certification (NCTRC) for seven years, serving as a member of the Appeals Board and working in other ways for the development of the certification exam. I was anxious to read Ann's article because I thought she was planning to discuss the philosophical differences that exist within the field of therapeutic recreation. I was disappointed that the article was really just a rehash of rumors about NCTRC.

The article states that "(i)ntemships completed at therapeutic recreation nonclinically based settings are no longer accepted unless they include... (assessment, planning and implementing programs and/ or treatment plans, documentation, and evaluation)." This is simply untrue. During my time on the Appeals Board, I have personally reviewed about 1,000 appeals of decisions made by the Certification Review Board (CRB). Both CRB and Appeals have accepted, and under the present standards will continue to accept, field placements completed in a community based therapeutic recreation program that did not fit the model (she) described in (her) article. I am surprised such a statement would be made without confirmation from NCTRC.

The article states that a criticism of the NCTRC test plan is that "...the exam represents a curriculum change since courses must reflect what professors think should be on the exam." This is false. NCTRC is not in the business of dictating academic content. The test is based upon what professionals practicing in the field identified as minimum competencies. Yes, these identified competencies may affect curricula, but the impact is from the professionals who identified them, not from NCTRC. NCTRC is only measuring these competencies. Any faculty member who tried to teach the exam missed the point. Good curricula [sic] should feel confident that their students will succeed on the test unless the curriculum includes an unusual approach to the field of therapeutic recreation.

The article states that "...faculty and students did not have adequate notice of, or information about, the exam." This is simply not true. The exam dates wen announced in mid-1989, with the exam set for late 1990. That is almost 18 months notice. How should we measure adequacy of time to prepare for the exam? How about looking at the pass rate of the more than 3,300 people who took the test? Well if that is agreeable, around 96 percent passed.

The article states an objection to the "...lack of grandparenting, which require; professionals who are currently certified to pass the exam in order to retain certification, even though (grandparenting) is standard practice within other health professions." The state of the art for the assessment of professional competencies is that all take an exam. This provides the greatest protection for consumers. The National Organization of Credentialing A gencies (NOCA) recommends and supports this stand because it offers the best protection to consumers.

The article states that non-clinical and leisure oriented professionals who have taken the exam feel that the exam is slanted towards therapy rather than leisure settings. Repeating these comments without validation is wrong. Did community or "leisure oriented" test-takers do as well on the exam as those with a "therapy" background? That should be the real issue here. I believe you'll see that test-takers from within all settings performed similarly on the test.

The article states that NCTRC has stood firm against grandparenting despite receiving petitions and resolutions, and implies an unwillingness on the part of NCTRC to consider change. Because of our belief in a state-of-the-art exam, we have stood firm. The high pass rate validates our contention that most test-taken would have minimum competency because the test was well designed.

Finally, the article states that "...(s)ince NCTRC is not a membership organization it can impose any new regulations on the certification standards that board members

Illinois Parks and Recreation 8 May/June 1991

Letters To The Editor

approve, without asking for the approval or vote of the therapeutic professionals in the field." Well, I guess that is one way to look at the situation. Let me phrase that differently. Would you ask a car mechanic to vote on the regulation or quality of generic auto parts? No. Would you ask a nurse to vote on changes in the regulation of the quality of care in hospitals? No. Both situations have people with skills who are impacted by outside regulations that protect the public. However, in both situations a conflict of interest exists. Most members of most professions, therapeutic recreation included, do not have knowledge of state-of-the-art professional licensure and Credentialing techniques. NOCA does, and NCTRC looks towards NOCA for information. The science of Credentialing is not a subject familiar to many TR professionals. So TR professionals are not asked to vote on a subject with which they are not familiar. Furthermore, NCTRC does ask the opinions of those who are certified. Every professional certified by NCTRC has had the opportunity to influence the Grafting of the exam. Some chose to do so while others chose to sit back and wait.

I too believe that the field must respond to the diverse settings in which TR will be provided, and that means our certification plans will ha veto respond. I wish the article had focused more on this issue.

A meeting of delegates from NCTRC and NTRS was held April 24 in Detroit in which some of these issues were discussed. Through the communication of facts and a reasoned dialogue, NCTRC addressed some of the concerns of NTRS such as the ones in Ann's article. But, it is unfortunate that articles like the one which appeared in this magazine continue to stir the water with rumor and speculation. That doesn't help the profession or the organizations involved, and it certainly doesn't help the consumer of therapeutic recreation services, whether found in clinical or community settings.

John N. McGovern, CTRS

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to the article written by Ann Zito, "A House Divided: The Philosophical Split In Therapeutic Recreation "which appeared in the January/February 1991 issue of Illinois Parks & Recreation magazine, page 21.

In her article, Zito reflects that those students working toward certification must complete an internship in a clinical setting in order to meet certification standards and thus become a Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist.

I disagree with Zito's comments and feel her views are unprecedented. As a certified therapist who completed an internship in a community based program, West Suburban Special Recreation, I can say her statement is false.

Following completion of my internship, which provided me with the experiences, skills, knowledge, and a spirit which lead me to be an asset to the field, I applied for certification and was certified with no difficulty. Immediately upon graduation, I was hired as a recreation therapist in a clinical setting. My commitment to the profession and the wide array of skills gained during my internship allowed me to be an asset to a multidisciplinary treatment team.

Linda Gannon, CTRS
Oak Lawn

Illinois Parks and Recreation 9 May/June 1991