Seventy-two program directors at AMTA-approved academic training programs were invited to participate in this study, identified from the American Music Therapy Association organization directory. In order to ensure anonymity, no descriptive information was collected from participants.

Specifically designed for this study, the survey comprised 14 questions: nine Likert and Likert-type questions and five open-ended questions. See Appendix A for the complete survey. After initial construction, the survey went through six rounds of revision and included feedback from four music therapy experts and one music therapy educator with knowledge in one or more of the following areas: survey design, question construction, knowledge of academic training programs, and data analysis procedures for survey research.

Potential participants were sent an email invitation describing the study, along with a hyperlink to the survey itself. A follow-up email was sent to all potential participants 10 days after the initial invitation. The survey was housed in SurveyMonkey, and individual responses were stored in the secure SurveyMonkey portal and then downloaded to the researchers’ password-protected personal computers in summary form after the close of the survey. The survey included a consent form, which participants could review and accept prior to starting the survey or leave the survey portal if they did not wish to proceed.

The study was reviewed by the Shenandoah University Institutional Review Board and adjudicated exempt from review.

Two forms of data analysis were undertaken:

1. Summary data for the nine Likert and Likert-type questions were calculated as percentages and averages and presented in table or descriptive written form. In doing so, we followed guidelines provided by Boone and Boone (2012) and Harpe (2015). The authors treated Likert and Likert-type response items (individual items) as interval level measurement (e.g. effective to ineffective; agree to disagree, etc.), assuming the distance between each item was equal. Further, we used criteria provided by Harpe (2015) when considering responses in Table 1 (faculty perceptions of the effectiveness of the CBMT exam in evaluating student competence in the CBMT domains) as a Likert scale response, calculating a total average score across all items.

2. Data from the open-ended questions were analyzed qualitatively, using analytical procedures consistent with qualitative content analysis (Ghetti & Keith, 2016; O’Callahan, 2016). These procedures were as follows:

After completing this series of procedural steps for each question, these narrative summaries were arranged sequentially by survey question. In order to maintain clarity and transparency with regards to qualitative responses in the Results section, qualitative codes in each narrative question were transformed into quantitative representations for statistical description. This approach of data transformation is appropriate in mixed-methods studies for purposes of “paradigmatic corroboration,” where both qualitative and quantitative responses examine a similar data set (Saldaña, 2016, p. 26).

Because of the complexity of the answers to each question and the overlap in responses between questions, a further analytic stage was undertaken to represent the data in ways that a) capture meta-themes, and b) reflect the responses of program directors as a whole. In doing so, this process integrated themes across questions, removed redundancies in participant responses between questions, and created an overall (meta) perspective of participant responses. This was undertaken as follows:

The Discussion section reflects the final written product of this analytic process.

The integrity of the data analysis process was ensured primarily by documenting each stage in the analytic process in detail so that each researcher could independently verify the co-researcher’s work. As such, researcher triangulation occurred through 1) numerous discussions of the data, coding procedures, and theme development, 2) independent examination of the process through which categories, themes and subthemes were developed, 3) independent verification of the number of coded items in each category, and 4) independent analysis of the narratives created to form the Discussion section. In these ways, each co-researcher was held accountable to the other, and each stage of the data analysis process was transparent and available for verification. Readers are invited to review all the original responses to the open-ended questions in Appendix B and to review these in relation to the co-researcher’s data analysis processes (presented in this document).

Forty-one program directors at AMTA-approved academic training programs participated in this study, a response rate of 58%. Survey results are divided into two sections. In the first section, summary data are provided regarding program directors’ responses to the nine Likert and Likert-type questions, followed by section two, an analysis of responses to five open-ended questions contained within the survey.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize program directors’ responses to two questions addressing the effectiveness of the CBMT exam in evaluating clinical competence. Descriptive statistics were calculated by assigning a numerical value to each rating (1 = ineffective to 5 = effective) and calculating the average ratings accordingly.

Table 1 summarizes faculty perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the CBMT exam in evaluating the four domain areas derived from the CBMT practice analysis. Average responses varied for each item, from 3.27 (treatment, implementation and termination) to 3.61 (professional development and responsibilities). When responses to these questions were treated as a Likert scale response (Boone & Boone, 2012; Harpe, 2015), the total average response was 3.34. Scores in the 3 to 4 range are rated as “neither effective nor ineffective” (a rating of 3) to “somewhat effective” (a rating of 4).

Table 2 provides a summary of faculty perceptions regarding the relationship between clinical competence, academic grades and the CBMT exam. When faculty rated the relationship between clinical competence and exam performance, the average of these responses was 3.32. When faculty rated the relationship between academic grades and exam performance, the average of these responses was 3.78. Scores in the 3 to 4 range are rated as “neither related nor unrelated” (a rating of 3) to “somewhat related” (a rating of 4).

Table 3 provides a summary of the reasons program directors perceive students “could or might fail the exam” (1 = disagree to 5 = agree). Average responses to each question varied from 2.40 (Unable to provide breadth and depth of coursework) to 3.47 (I do not teach to the exam). Of particular interest were responses concerning academic preparation for the exam (I do not teach to the exam; I am unable to provide the breadth and depth of coursework; inconsistent philosophy) and perceptions related to the validity of the exam (the exam is not valid; some of the exam is irrelevant to competent and/or safe clinical practice). Regarding academic preparation, the average response to the item “unable to provide breadth and depth of coursework” was 2.4, where scores in the 2 to 3 range reflect “somewhat disagree” to “neither agree nor disagree.” When program directors were asked about “inconsistent philosophy,” the average of these responses was 2.63, where scores in the 2 to 3 range reflect “somewhat disagree” to “neither agree nor disagree.” Finally, when program directors were asked to rate the extent of agreement regarding “I do not teach to the exam,” the average of these responses was 3.47, where scores in the 3 to 4 range reflect “neither agree nor disagree” to “somewhat agree.”

Further, when program directors were asked about their perceptions of the validity of the exam, responses to these two questions were as follows. When asked to respond to the statement “the exam is not valid,” the average of these responses was 2.8, where a score of 2.8 reflects “neither agree nor disagree” to “somewhat disagree.” When asked to respond to the statement “some of the exam is irrelevant to competent and/or safe clinical practice,” the average of these responses was 3.28, where scores in the 3 to 4 range reflect “neither agree nor disagree” to “somewhat agree.”

Program directors were also asked to indicate their level of agreement with a statement made by CBMT Executive Director Schneck that was included in the final report of the Master’s Level Entry subcommittee: “While music therapy clinical practice is advancing, as reflected in the practice analysis and increased cut scores; [sic.] the change is not being driven by music therapy education as indicated in the declining pass rate” (in Wylie et al., 2017, pp. 10–11). When these responses were examined as a whole, 18% (7) of faculty disagreed, 15% (6) somewhat disagreed, 15% (6) neither agreed nor disagreed, 23% (9) somewhat agreed, and 30% (12) agreed, with the average these responses being 3.33. Scores in the 3 to 4 range are rated as “neither agree nor disagree” (a rating of 3) to “somewhat agree” (a rating of 4).

Finally, program directors were asked if they, or their faculty colleagues, provided specific preparation for the CBMT exam: 59% said they did, whereas 41% said they did not. When those faculty who said they provided specific preparation for the CBMT exam (n = 28) were asked how effective they perceived their preparation activities to be, 3% (1) reported they were ineffective, none found them somewhat ineffective (0), 8% (3) described them as neither effective nor ineffective, 41% (16) described them as somewhat effective, and 21% (8) described them as effective.

Participant responses to the five open-ended questions are summarized below (Tables 4–8) and described in detail in the Discussion. This includes comments related to the exam (Table 4), why programs directors believe students may be failing the exam (Table 5), how academic programs support student preparation for the exam (Table 6), perceived barriers to effective preparation (Table 7), and what changes, if any, program directors would make to the exam (Table 8). In providing this summary data, respondents and responses are differentiated. The term respondents denotes the total number of program directors who responded to a particular question, whereas responses reflects the number of comments made for each theme or category of response. Thus, the total number of responses is often larger than the number of respondents as many of the program directors gave detailed written responses that were included in analysis for multiple themes. Percentage calculations in each of these categories are based on the number of respondents who made a statement about a particular theme, compared to the total number of respondents for the question.

Program directors were given the opportunity to describe what they perceived the CBMT exam evaluates, based on their experiences of preparing students to take the exam. Thirty-nine program directors responded, providing 52 responses that are summarized in Table 4. These responses are as follows: 1) 54% (21) of respondents questioned or criticized the exam’s ability to evaluate clinical competence, 2) 41% (16) perceived the exam to evaluate test-taking abilities, 3) 31% (12) perceived the exam to evaluate a student’s ability to practice competently and/or safely, and 4) 8% (3) were unsure what the exam evaluated.

Program directors were given an opportunity to respond to CBMT Executive Director Schneck’s (in Wylie et al., 2017, p. 10) comments related to academic training and exam pass rates. Twenty-nine program directors responded, providing a total of 49 responses, which are summarized in Table 5. These include concerns regarding: 1) external validity (62%–ability of exam to measure entry level competency); 2) erroneous assumptions on the part of CBMT regarding reason for increased failures (24%); 3) undergraduate curriculum cannot expand to reflect the breadth and depth of our developing practice (21%); and 4) insufficient communication by and between CBMT, AMTA and National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) (21%).

Program directors were asked if they provided specific kinds of exam preparation for their students, and if they did, to describe this preparation. Twenty-eight program directors (59%) reported that they (or their faculty colleagues) provided specific exam preparation, of which the three main methods were: 1) formal instruction (32%), 2) instructional methods within a specific course(s) (25%), and 3) specific exam preparation outside of class (21%). These responses are summarized in Table 6.

Program directors were also asked if they experienced any barriers in preparing students for the exam. Thirty-four program directors responded, providing a total of 54 responses, which are summarized in Table 7. Although the majority of the responses (n = 24; 71%) reflect a belief that the exam preparation they provided students was effective or somewhat effective, the three most common barriers reported were: 1) a lack of knowledge about exam content and lack of experience with the exam (32%), 2) the perception that the undergraduate curriculum is insufficient in providing the breadth of knowledge and skills required to prepare students for competent practice (27%), 3) students have weak analytical and critical thinking skills, (9%) and 4) students wait too long after internship to take the exam (9%). All responses are summarized in Table 7.

Finally, program directors were asked what changes, if any, they would make to the exam. Thirty-four program directors responded, providing a total of 41 responses. A wide variety of changes were suggested, which will be presented in detail in the Discussion.

Concerns regarding content and construct validity were expressed throughout the survey, particularly in the open-ended questions (see Table 5). The leading problem that program directors had with the exam was its concreteness, which they viewed as disregarding the complex clinical contexts in which knowledge and skills are applied. From this perspective, clinical interventions are dependent upon the context in which they occur, whereas the exam accepts only one correct answer, which is often correct only within one particular theoretical approach (e.g. behavioral) and/or clinical context. Thus, from their perspective, the exam does not adequately reflect clinical practice, revealing instead a disconnection between the “correct” answer and the myriad ways clinicians actually think about their work with clients.

Some educators also reported that their clinical philosophy and way of thinking about and teaching music therapy was not consistent with the exam format or content, nor was the exam able to evaluate the kinds of clinical practice skills they identified as central to competent practice. For example, these educators believed that students who reflected deeply about the clinical context of the question tended to choose more incorrect answers because they were aware of the multiple ways one might respond to a client, depending on the context of the response. In addition, other educators observed that the test questions often had distractors that led students to have difficulty recognizing what knowledge the question was testing. Overall, for these respondents, the exam was therefore perceived to be a measure of test taking (i.e. understanding what is being tested) rather than evaluating sound clinical decision-making skills that are foundational to safe and competent practice.

Program directors also expressed a range of opinions as to whether the current exam is reflective of entry-level practice. Reasons for this perceived lack of content validity were premised upon concerns that some questions included in the exam may require knowledge that extends beyond what one can reasonably be expected to know at the bachelor’s level. These concerns were connected to the construction of the exam, which is derived from the Practice Analysis. The Practice Analysis is undertaken every five years (the last was in 2019) to generate a list of job tasks that are used to generate and define Board Certification Domains. These domains are then used in the construction of the exam, which is managed by the testing firm Applied Measurement Professionals (AMP; CBMT, n.d.-b).

While the involvement of AMP ensures psychometrically sound procedures, many faculty remained doubtful that the exam solely tests bachelor’s level competency. These concerns were based on the perception that the exam may include questions formulated from 1) the knowledge and experience of graduate equivalency professionals (master’s degree), which they do not perceive as comparable to bachelor’s level entry (BLE) professionals, 2) professionals who have specialized training (e.g. NICU, NMT etc.), 3) professionals working in a specialized environment performing duties that require an advanced breadth and depth of practice (beyond BLE), and 4) professionals who carry out duties that extend beyond the job description of a music therapist (e.g. activity director, recreational therapist or case manager). Thus, these faculty believed that the Practice Analysis process results in an exam that extends beyond the scope and training for a BLE music therapist as defined by AMTA for entry into the profession (see Table 5).

Faculty also questioned whether it was preferable to have an exam that evaluated entry-level practice at the bachelor’s level or required a master’s degree to enter the profession. These comments were related to the MLE Subcommittee report and the AMTA Board of Directors’ decision about MLE, which was unknown at the time of this survey. A frequent comment was that undergraduate education and training was not adequate to teach entry-level skills and knowledge, while the current exam tests beyond entry level. The response of one educator succinctly captures the perspective of a number of these faculty members:

Throughout the narrative responses, program directors expressed a range of concerns about the exam that they viewed to be a result of the relationship between CBMT, AMTA, and NASM. The primary theme expressed through these statements was the disconnect between the Professional Competencies of AMTA and the CBMT Domains, which faculty perceived as being qualitatively different. Further, the distribution of credits required by NASM for music therapy degree programs was another concern, particularly the core music credits that many perceived as having little application to the music skills required for music therapy practice. Finally, some faculty felt that the exclusion of educators during exam construction exacerbated the perceived disconnect between AMTA and CBMT competencies, making it difficult for educators to create a curriculum based on AMTA requirements that also addresses the CBMT domains.

The majority of program directors also felt that there was a lack of communication between CBMT, AMTA and educators, and that this posed a number of problems in preparing students for the exam. Notable among these concerns were the following: 1) faculty lack accurate knowledge about exam content and are likely to have no recent experience taking the exam, 2) there is no systematic mechanism through which faculty are informed about changes to cut scores, 3) there is no way for educators to identify where the focus of the exam will shift from cycle to cycle based on the practice analysis, and 4) there are no examples of actual test questions that mirror the current exam. When taken as a whole, this appears to suggest that educators perceive significant obstacles in preparing students for the exam.

Program directors’ responses to Executive Director Schneck’s statement regarding educational preparation and clinical competence (“While music therapy clinical practice is advancing, as reflected in the practice analyses and increased cut scores; [sic] the change is not being driven by music therapy education as indicated in the declining pass rates”) may be viewed from two different perspectives. When Likert and Likert-type responses are examined, they suggest a widely divergent points of view: 18% (7) of faculty disagreed with the Executive Director’s statement, 15% (6) somewhat disagreed, 15% (6) neither agreed nor disagreed, 23% (9) somewhat agreed, and 30% (12) agreed. When the average of these responses was calculated, the mean was 3.3. Scores in the 3 to 4 range are rated as “neither agree nor disagree” (a rating of 3) to “somewhat agree” (a rating of 4). However, written responses from program directors provide a different picture, with most faculty members responding in ways that suggest increased failures were the result of systemic problems in the construction of the exam (already described in this section).

Some educators also drew attention to the fact that there is no evidence that the recent decline in the pass rate is associated with inadequate academic preparation. Logically, they point out, if clinical practice is advancing, how can CBMT conclude that education is not driving this advancement? Two educators take this logic further, suggesting that improvements in education may be causing lower scores, as students are being taught more advanced skills and concepts than those represented in the exam—which requires a more cognitive, cause-effect clinical perspective.

While most faculty members perceived that increased failures were due to systemic problems, two program directors suggested that educators themselves may be at fault, in that they may not be keeping abreast of evidence-based practice, or they may not include an adequate number of clinical approaches and philosophies, thus failing to prepare students. Several faculty members also stressed that it was the educator’s job to prepare students to take this kind of test by developing test-taking skills throughout their undergraduate or equivalency training. Recent successful exam candidates in Hsiao et al.’s (2020) study found academic course work to be helpful or very helpful (65%), but they requested additional support in terms of: 1) provision of an overview of the exam process, 2) provision of current resources to prepare for the exam, 3) assistance to develop skills needed to take standardized tests, and 4) the inclusion of exam questions in academic coursework that would be similar to questions used in the board certification exam. Certainly, the apparent discrepancy between the level of effectiveness with which faculty believe they prepare students for the exam (the majority of responses reflect a belief that the exam preparation they provide students was effective, or somewhat effective), and the continued decline in first time pass rates, suggests faculty give increased attention to the preparation methods and materials they provide for their students.

Some faculty also recognized that students had a role to play in passing the exam, noting that while some students had excellent clinical skills and an instinctive awareness when working with clients, they do not possess the analytical and critical thinking skills needed to pass the exam. Others believed that the timing of the test was a factor, since students who take the exam too long after internship and/or neglect to ask for help in preparing for the exam have more difficulty passing. Finally, some program directors observed that students for whom English is a second language had much greater difficulty passing the exam because of the ways in which language is used in the exam, a perception consistent with Hsiao et al.’s (2020) study findings.

While 5 of the 34 respondents (15%) to the question “What changes, if any, would you make to the CBMT exam?” believed that no changes are needed, 29 program directors recommended changes. These include 1) organizational and curriculum changes, 2) exam content changes, 3) alternate exam formats, and 4) entry level and advanced practice exams. Each will be briefly summarized below.

Program directors suggested a number of solutions that address their perception that there is a lack of communication and coordination between CBMT, AMTA, and faculty. For example, one program director suggested that CBMT could be more forthcoming in helping academic programs to identify where their students are having problems so that these can be addressed. Another suggested that AMTA perform a complete review of their educational competencies and realign them to more accurately reflect current practice, as defined by the CBMT scope of practice.

Two specific solutions related to an over-extended undergraduate curriculum were also suggested. These were: 1) addressing the percent of music therapy courses in the undergraduate curriculum required by NASM and AMTA, and 2) reviewing the content of the NASM requirements with a particular focus to musical skills development. Program directors concerned with music skills requirements believe that by reducing the applied music and ensemble requirements, students could focus more on clinical music skills and ensemble requirements, which are ever-expanding and demanding, though often underestimated by applied music faculty. Such a focus on clinical music skills would be of great benefit in preparing students for their profession as music therapists, while also addressing burdens associated with an over-extended undergraduate curriculum.

Program directors suggested a number of solutions to address their concerns regarding exam content. These included:

Because of the challenges they perceived that some students have with the exam, a number of program directors favored exploring alternative ways of evaluating clinical competence. These included adding a live clinical component to the exam, focusing more exam questions on clinical practice, and providing alternative test-taking formats for students with disabilities. Some respondents in Hsiao et al.’s. (2020) study also suggested that CBMT might enhance the validity of the exam by considering other forms of testing such as essay questions and experiential components.

Finally, several program directors suggested creating different levels of exams, which they believed would address issues related to the scope of practice and an over-burdened undergraduate curriculum. These solutions included: 1) creating entry level and advanced practice exams, and 2) creating a tiered exam system similar to nursing. Such a system would reflect different levels of training and expertise, allowing for both undergraduate and graduate levels of examination.

Three limitations are acknowledged when considering the findings from this study. The first is the sample size. While reflecting the responses of over half of all eligible program directors, a larger sample of academic faculty may have yielded different categories and distributions of responses. Second, as no identifying information was gathered on participants, comparisons from different groups of respondents were not possible. Gathering data such as program philosophy, recent first-time program pass rates, years as an educator, and region may have provided additional information that clarified responses and distinguished categories of response. Finally, as program directors are not permitted on the CBMT Exam Committee, nor do they have access to the exam, their survey responses reflect perceptions about the exam, and as such, may vary in their accuracy and/or depth of understanding.

The findings from this survey reveal a broad range of perspectives among program directors about the meaningfulness of the CBMT exam in measuring clinical competence. Summary data from the Likert and Likert-type questions suggest that program directors do not, on average, perceive the exam to be effective or ineffective in evaluating competence to practice safely and effectively, and that, on average, they view clinical competence and academic grades as being neither related nor unrelated to CBMT exam performance. Written responses from participants provide a clearer picture, with 54% of responses critical of the exam’s ability to evaluate clinical competence, and a further 41% suggesting the exam evaluates test-taking abilities. These concerns were further expressed in the number of comments related to external validity, with 62% of responses expressing concerns about the ability of the exam to measure undergraduate entry-level job tasks and competence.

While these findings suggest that program directors have a number of concerns about the CBMT exam, a number of faculty also appear to believe the CBMT exam is a relevant and meaningful measure of clinical competence (see Table 1). One might ask, how is this possible? How can it be that some faculty are supportive of the exam, perhaps even strongly so, whereas other faculty are critical of the exam, perhaps equally strongly so?

These conflicting perspectives may serve as an important starting point for a larger discussion about how music therapy is defined and practiced, and it may serve to bring us closer to addressing core concerns about the exam expressed in this survey. For example, perhaps those program directors who expressed support for the exam do so because they are aligned philosophically with the exam. That is, they believe that the exam evaluates the “correct” or “right” way of thinking about music therapy; that there are “first” and “best” clinical decisions that can be made outside of the clinical context in which they occur; and that music therapy is best understood causally. From this perspective, it follows that music therapy interventions can be understood objectively, with clients behaving in predictable ways in relation to musical stimuli, and that we can therefore predict the ways groups of clients respond to a music experience (whether this be a specific music element, activity, or experience). When this clinical perspective is taken, then the CBMT exam appears to make sense, and may well be a reliable way of measuring clinical competence.

What happens though, if you don’t believe music therapy works this way? Or, that you were not trained to think this way because your instructors taught you a different way of thinking about music therapy? What happens if you believe that benefits of music are not causal, and that music experiences evoke myriad reactions from clients, both conscious and unconscious, and these are best addressed within the context of the unique therapeutic relationship between the client and their music therapist? From this perspective, each therapeutic process may be different, even when working with clients who have the same diagnosis and clinical goals, and therefore deciding the “first” and “best” response to a client can only occur within the specific context of that client or session.

While we can understand music as a stimulus, in which the specific elements of music evoke specific responses from clients, this is only one way of understanding music. We can also understand music as a symbol, a metaphor, a cultural marker, an energy system, and a portal to the spirit world, just to name a few such perspectives. Such perspectives reflect more than philosophical differences in individual music therapists’ approaches to work with clients. They reflect equally valid ways of thinking about and practicing music therapy, and as such are equally important ways of understanding clinical competence.

Herein lies a core concern about the CBMT exam, and may be one way of drawing together the plethora of concerns that program directors have regarding the exam: whereas music therapy can be practiced in a wide variety of ways, each of which has its own integrity, the CBMT exam may only evaluate one way of thinking about music therapy clinical practice.

Students’ struggles with the exam, especially in the last decade, may therefore reflect two important things: 1) their exam performance may be an indication of the extent to which their academic program is philosophically aligned with the ways in which the CBMT exam defines music therapy clinical practice, and 2) the drop in first-time pass rates may reflect a deepening and differentiation of clinical practice knowledge that no longer aligns with the fundamental premises of the exam. That is, educators are advancing clinical practice, and one of the ways of doing so is to develop the sophistication of their own theoretical perspective. If this perspective does not align with the philosophical premises of the CBMT exam, measured in the ways exam questions ask students to think about therapy, then students in these programs may well do poorly.

A second and related concern has to do with the relationship between the academic training program, the internship, and the CBMT exam. As any client would hope, music therapy students must pass three levels of evaluation before they can work clinically: academic, internship, and exam. In this process, the academic training program “approves” the student for internship. That is, they vouch for the student by verifying to the internship director that the student has met all the academic and clinical training competencies necessary to start internship. Second, the internship director, at the end of a successful internship, vouches for the student. Through their final evaluation, the internship director says, in essence: “This student is ready to work as a music therapist.” That is, prior to being eligible to take the exam, the student has passed two levels of evaluation that verify the student’s competence. How is it that, even with these two levels of verification, students are not able to practice because they cannot pass the exam? Would it not be equally plausible to say that the exam is not measuring the student’s competence, especially if the internship director, who has observed the student working clinically for 6 months (approximately 1000 hours), says that the student is competent?

These clinical practice problems are compounded by AMTA and CBMT’s definitions of music therapy, as characterized by the Professional Competencies and Board Certification Domains. From these perspectives, music therapy has cognitive, communicative, emotional, musical, physiological, psychosocial, sensorimotor and spiritual benefits (CBMT Domain I.B.3) that can be addressed behaviorally, developmentally, humanistically, psychodynamically, neurologically, and medically (CBMT Domain II.A.4). Also included in CBMT’s treatment approaches and models are holistic, culture centered, community music therapy and improvisational (CBMT Domain II.A.4). How much of each of these theories are students expected to know, and even more importantly, how much clinical practice knowledge should students have about each model and treatment approach in relation to each clinical setting? None of this is defined, and yet students are being evaluated on these competencies.

Such a broad definition of music therapy has significant clinical practice implications. For example, should we expect a 22-year-old new graduate to work psychotherapeutically with a 54-year-old man with testicular cancer who has just been told his disease is terminal and he should “get his house in order.” According to both AMTA and CBMT, this newly board-certified music therapist has met the competency requirements to practice with this client (AMTA Professional Competencies 10.3, 10.5, 13.5 and 13.13; CBMT Domains I.B.3.c and II.A.4.i).

Further, how should this student’s competence to practice be evaluated prior to starting work? Does the CBMT exam evaluate minimal competence to practice when the music therapist is working psychodynamically with an adult addressing emotional goals? We propose that a majority of psychodynamically trained music therapists would argue that the CBMT exam does not evaluate this kind of clinical competence, even though the student has the designated credential (MT-BC) to practice.

Finally, we acknowledge concerns expressed by some faculty that some academic programs may not be “keeping up.” We believe this is an important topic for discussion, especially in light of the increased concerns expressed by many faculty about their students’ mental health, an overburdened undergraduate curriculum, and the financial pressures many students experience completing an undergraduate degree. But we also suggest any such discussions be carefully considered, especially if “keeping up” is only being measured by first-time pass-rates for the CBMT exam. The findings from this survey present a much more complex picture, in which it is equally important to ask: “Is the CBMT exam keeping up with clinical practice?” And, perhaps more importantly: “What kind of clinical practice is the CBMT exam evaluating?”