Categories
buddhistische-datierung visitors

The main standard beta coefficient (? = 0

The main standard 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 http://datingranking.net/de/buddhistische-datierung/ 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.

Practitioners which have a great constructivist epistemology had a tendency to put alot more focus on the personal thread in the therapeutic matchmaking as compared to practitioners that have good rationalist epistemology

The present day data indicated that specialist epistemology is a critical predictor of at least certain regions of the functional alliance. The strongest selecting was in regards to the introduction of good personal bond between the consumer and you can therapist (Bond subscale). So it supports the idea regarding the literature that constructivist practitioners place a heightened emphasis on building an excellent healing relationship characterized by, “greet, knowledge, trust, and you can caring.

Theory step three-your selection of Specific Therapeutic Treatments

The third and you may finally study was created to address the fresh new forecast that epistemology might possibly be an excellent predictor out of therapist use of certain therapy process. Way more specifically, the rationalist epistemology usually declaration playing with process of the cognitive behavioral procedures (e.g. guidance offering) more constructivist epistemologies, and you may practitioners that have constructivist epistemologies commonly report having fun with techniques of the constructivist cures (e.grams. psychological processing) over practitioners which have rationalist epistemologies). A simultaneous linear regression study is conducted to decide if your predictor adjustable (specialist epistemology) have a tendency to determine therapist ratings of your own criterion details (treatment 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 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.