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 having good constructivist epistemology had a tendency to place even more emphasis on the private thread regarding healing matchmaking compared to therapists which have a good rationalist epistemology
datingranking.net/tsdating-review
The present day study showed that therapist epistemology was a critical predictor with a minimum of certain aspects of the working alliance. The strongest interested in was a student in relation to the development of an excellent individual bond amongst the customer and you may counselor (Bond subscale). This supporting the notion about books one to constructivist therapists set an increased focus on strengthening an excellent healing dating characterized by, “invited, skills, trust, and you will caring.
Theory step 3-the selection of Specific Therapeutic Interventions
The next and you can latest analysis is made to address this new anticipate you to definitely epistemology would-be a beneficial predictor off therapist the means to access particular therapy process. Far more especially, that rationalist epistemology will statement having fun with techniques in the intellectual behavioral cures (age.grams. pointers offering) over constructivist epistemologies, and you will practitioners that have constructivist epistemologies often report playing with process with the constructivist procedures (elizabeth.g. emotional processing) over practitioners with rationalist epistemologies). A parallel linear regression research is actually presented to decide when your predictor varying (counselor epistemology) tend to determine specialist analysis of requirement variables (treatment 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.