MOL accreditation

Since 2021, we have been working on the development of an accreditation procedure for Method of Levels practitioners. Our objective is to shape the procedure according to Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) principles and provide a way that MoL therapists and practitioners all over the world can develop, test and prove their proficiency in Method of Levels conversations. This project answers a need expressed by practitioners to obtain an MoL licence to help their own professional development and be acknowledged among their peers. Having such a procedure will also increase MoL’s professional profile. We operate under the umbrella of the IAPCT.

The project is a collaboration between Eva de Hullu (Open Universiteit, the Netherlands), Warren Mansell (Curtin University, Perth, Australia) and Ana Churchman (Manchester University, UK) with the help of students and other collaborators. Eva’s student Pauline Tieleman will be working on this project throughout 2023. We will need to do the same process for our own accreditation as any new candidates. We will also be looking to identify an independent evaluator of our accreditation system who has experience accrediting other therapies.

After an extensive process of consultation and adaptation, we are now ready to test the first candidates. With your help, we aim to accredit the first 10 candidates over the course of 2023, to kick start the process and to evaluate our current procedures thoroughly. We aim to further professionalise the process in 2024.  For this first round starting at the end of May 2023, we will need people to take the roles of both candidate – submitting one’s own recordings –  and reviewer – evaluating candidates’ submissions. We will ask candidates to review in the next round, and vice versa. We will first aim at candidates secure in their MoL proficiency. 

Please read the extensive information below and in the reviewer/candidate forms linked to get a sense of what is expected of candidates and reviewers. We welcome your feedback regarding any aspect of the evaluation and accreditation system any time.

Contact us through if you want to be part of this accreditation pilot as candidate and reviewer. Please also indicate if you wish to be part of the accreditation committee of the IAPCT to take care of parts of this process now and in the future.

Short outline of the procedure

Candidates submit three recordings of MoL conversations (min 10 min/max 60 min) of 3 different clients, together with the report for each recording. 

The candidate evaluates the recordings using the candidate form for application. This form includes an introduction of the candidate’s background and a structured evaluation of and reflection on each case submitted. The candidate:

  • Uses the MOLFI to rate the aspects of the four MoL dimensions (control, explore, notice and sustain) for each recording.
  • Rates the overall scores on these dimensions as well as reorganisation for each recording.
  • Evaluates their skill of the CENS dimensions (Control, Explore, Notice and Sustain) of the MOLFI and reorganisation showing proper understanding of Perceptual Control Theory (PCT).
  • Includes client feedback on all recorded sessions.
  • Reflects on each MoL session, defines what went well and what was difficult and describes what is learned.

Each candidate is reviewed by 2 anonymous reviewers, selected by the IAPCT accreditation committee. In this pilot, we ask each candidate to also serve as reviewer for two other candidates.

Both reviewers will review 2 recordings using the reviewer form:

  • Recording 1 + report → reviewer 1
  • Recording 2 + report → reviewer 1 + 2
  • Recording 3 + report → reviewer 2

The reviewer form is constructed to ensure that the candidate’s application will be evaluated in a similar way by all reviewers. The form provides a structured way to review each case and subsequently conclude if accreditation should be granted. The IAPCT will decide on accreditation after receiving both reviewer forms. In case of disagreement between the two reviewers, a suitable follow-up will be discussed.

Reviewer tasks (using the form)

  • Context: provides background information, no judgment.
  • Recording: watch the recordings of the candidate and take notes on any relevant aspects of the session to include in your assessment. Evaluate the overall adherence to the CENS dimensions of the MOLFI and the extent to which the candidate was able to facilitate effective reorganisation. Please note that what matters is the quality of the facilitation, not the outcome of the reorganisation process. 
  • Candidate’s MOLFI self-rating: what do you notice when you compare your rating to the candidate’s self-rating and the feedback the client provided? 
  • Evaluation: review the quality of the candidate’s evaluation and their demonstrated applied knowledge of MoL and PCT in the context of each reviewed case. 
  • Client feedback: use this section as background information for your overall judgment.
  • Reflection: read the candidate’s reflection on both reviewed cases and evaluate the quality of the reflection. Does the candidate demonstrate capability of identifying strengths and weaknesses in adhering to the MoL dimensions and facilitating reorganisation?
  • Case conclusion: evaluate the quality of the candidate’s conclusion of each reviewed case and provide additional suggestions for improvement if needed.
  • Case judgment: did the candidate demonstrate sufficient adherence to MoL, PCT knowledge and reflection to pass this case? Please explain. 
  • Overall conclusion candidate: please provide short feedback on the overall conclusion of the candidate. Do you have any suggestions or comments on how the candidate can improve their practice? Are there any other relevant comments you would like to share with the candidate? Please explain.
  • Reviewer overall judgment: do you think accreditation should be granted? Please explain.


The reviewer is anonymous to the candidate.  The reviewer declares that they will treat the material provided for this review as confidential and that they have no conflict of interest in reviewing the candidate. They sign this agreement in a separate form and submit it to the IAPCT. 

Materials are shared through the service of an encrypted storage provider. Links will be 


In this pilot phase we want to provide accreditation free of cost to candidates and we depend on the volunteer work of committee members and reviewers. IAPCT will pay for the costs of the data storage. After the pilot phase, we may decide to ask candidates for a fee to cover these costs.