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.
Practitioners with a good constructivist epistemology tended to lay a whole lot more focus on the personal thread on the therapeutic matchmaking versus therapists that have a rationalist epistemology
The modern studies indicated that counselor epistemology was a life threatening predictor with a minimum of some regions of the functional alliance. The strongest searching for was in regards to the development of an excellent private thread within consumer and you can therapist (Thread subscale). That it aids the notion throughout the literature one to constructivist therapists put an elevated emphasis on strengthening an excellent therapeutic matchmaking described as, “greeting, facts, faith, and you can compassionate.
Hypothesis step three-your choice of Certain Healing Treatments
The 3rd and you can latest study was designed to address the new forecast you to definitely epistemology will be good predictor out of specialist usage of particular procedures procedure. Far more specifically, that the rationalist epistemology often declaration using processes of the https://datingranking.net/es/citas-bhm/ intellectual behavioral medication (elizabeth.grams. information providing) more than constructivist epistemologies, and you will therapists that have constructivist epistemologies commonly statement playing with procedure regarding the constructivist procedures (elizabeth.grams. mental handling) over practitioners which have rationalist epistemologies). A parallel linear regression investigation is presented to determine in case the predictor adjustable (therapist epistemology) commonly determine therapist critiques of the expectations details (medication process).
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.
Keine Kommentare vorhanden