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 which have a beneficial constructivist epistemology tended to lay a whole lot more focus on the personal bond regarding therapeutic dating as compared to practitioners with an effective rationalist epistemology
The current research revealed that counselor epistemology was a significant predictor with a minimum of certain aspects of the functional alliance. The best seeking was in regards to the development of a good personal bond amongst the customer and counselor (Bond subscale). That it supporting the idea regarding the literary works you to definitely constructivist therapists place an increased increased exposure of strengthening a good therapeutic relationship characterized by, “greeting, wisdom, faith, and you may caring.
Hypothesis 3-your choice of Certain Healing Treatments
The 3rd and last research was created to target the brand new forecast one epistemology was a great predictor out-of counselor accessibility particular therapy techniques. A great deal more especially, your rationalist epistemology tend to report playing with procedure of this cognitive behavioral medication (elizabeth.g. suggestions offering) more than constructivist epistemologies, and you will practitioners with constructivist epistemologies usually statement playing with techniques with the constructivist medication (elizabeth.grams. emotional handling) more practitioners having rationalist epistemologies). A simultaneous linear https://datingranking.net/es/citas-en-el-pais/ regression investigation try held to determine should your predictor adjustable (counselor epistemology) have a tendency to influence therapist feedback of your own expectations variables (cures 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.
Нет Ответов