The key standardized beta coefficient (? = 0

The key standardized beta coefficient (? = 0

The Goal Subscale Epistemology was also a significant predictor of therapist emphasis on the working alliance along the Goal subscale (e.g. client and therapist agreement on how to achieve the goals), F(2, 1093) = 4.92, p < .007 (R 2 = .009). 065) for the rationalist epistemology t(1093) = 2.16, p < .031, was in the positive direction. 075) for the constructivist epistemology t(1093) = 2.47, p < .014, was also in the positive direction along the Goal subscale. This was again inconsistent with the proposed hypothesis that the rationalist epistemology would have stronger leanings towards the Goal subscale in the therapist emphasis on working alliance compared to therapists with a constructivist epistemology.

The Bond Subscale Lastly, epistemology was also a significant predictor of the therapist emphasis on the working alliance along the Bond subscale (the development of a personal bond between the client and therapist), F(2, 1089) = , p < .001 (R 2 = .035). The standardized beta coefficient for the rationalist epistemology (? = – 0.034) was in the negative direction, but was not significant, t(1089) = –1.15, p < .249. For the constructivist epistemology, the standardized beta coefficient (? = 0.179) was significant t(1089) = 5.99, p < .0001, and in the positive direction along the Bond subscale. This supported the hypothesis that the rationalist epistemology is less inclined towards therapist emphasis on working alliance on the Bond subscale than the constructivist epistemology.

Therapists that have a beneficial constructivist epistemology had a tendency to place far more increased exposure of the personal thread on the healing relationship as compared to practitioners having a rationalist epistemology

The modern studies showed that therapist epistemology try a critical predictor with a minimum of particular regions of the functional alliance. The best looking was in relation to the development of a good individual bond within buyer and you will specialist (Thread subscale). It supports the notion from the literature that constructivist therapists lay a heightened emphasis on strengthening an excellent healing relationships characterized by, “allowed, expertise, trust, and you will caring.

Theory step 3-your selection of Certain Healing Treatments

The third and finally studies is designed to address the prediction you to epistemology would be a good predictor away from counselor entry to particular procedures procedure. Much more particularly, that rationalist epistemology tend to declaration having fun with procedure associated with intellectual behavioural treatment (elizabeth.g. suggestions providing) over constructivist epistemologies, and you will practitioners which have constructivist epistemologies tend to declaration using procedure from the constructivist procedures (age.g. psychological processing) more than practitioners having rationalist epistemologies). A simultaneous linear regression studies are used to determine if for example the predictor adjustable (specialist epistemology) have a tendency to dictate specialist analysis of your own expectations details (procedures techniques).

Epistemology was a significant predictor of cognitive behavioral therapy techniques F(2, 993) = , p < .001 (R 2 = .185). The standardized beta coefficient for the rationalist epistemology (? = 0.430) was significant, t(993) = , p < .001 and in the positive direction. The standardized beta coefficient for the constructivist epistemology (? = 0.057) was significant and in the positive direction t(993) = 1.98, p < .05. This supported the hypothesis that the rationalist epistemology would have stronger leanings of therapist use of cognitive behavioral techniques when conducting therapy than constructivist epistemologies.

Finally, epistemology was a significant predictor skout promo code of constructivist therapy techniques F(2, 1012) = , p < .001 (R 2 = .138). The standardized beta coefficient for the rationalist epistemology (? = – 0.297) was significant t(1012) = –, p < .0001 and in the negative direction. The standardized beta coefficient for the constructivist epistemology (? = 0.195) was significant t(1012) = 6.63, p < .0001, and in the positive direction. This supported the hypothesis that the constructivist epistemology would place a stronger emphasis on therapist use of constructivist techniques when conducting therapy than rationalist epistemologies.

Geef een reactie

Je e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *