The article "ECPs Give Mixed Verdict on Value of Board Certification" in the August 18 issue noted that there was a 27 percent response rate to a survey of APA members who are early career psychiatrists (ECPs) and that a positive response about the board certification process was "rare."

The APA Assembly Committee of ECPs concludes that at this time there is not much call for APA to work more closely with the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN). If there had been a 98 percent response rate and the "positive" responses were still "rare," would the response be different? (I doubt it.) The Assembly Committee of ECPs has decided that "data" suggest significant misconceptions among ECPs. Curious how APA has relieved itself of any responsibility for improving the ABPN despite overwhelming evidence that the ABPN should become more consumer friendly. Believing that the ABPN’s impact on a career is limited to "managed care" is naive. Did the Assembly Committee of ECPs intentionally ask the wrong questions in its survey? Did it ask the wrong people? I suspect that if all the board-certified members who have taught a review course, served as a proctor or examiner, or derive some part of their income from the "board preparation" industry were polled, the survey would be overwhelmingly positive with only a "rare" negative comment. The fact that a survey with a 27 percent response rate got only a "rare" positive comment about the certification process says a lot.

Travis Svensson, M.D.

San Francisco, Calif.