The key standard beta coefficient (? = 0

The key 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 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 that have a beneficial constructivist epistemology tended to set much more focus on the non-public bond throughout the healing matchmaking compared to the practitioners which have a rationalist epistemology

The modern data showed that specialist epistemology is actually a serious predictor with a minimum of particular areas of the functional alliance. The strongest trying to find was in relation to the introduction of a good private bond involving the consumer and you may therapist (Bond subscale). That it aids the notion regarding literary works that constructivist practitioners put an increased emphasis on building a good therapeutic matchmaking described as, “greeting, facts, faith, and you may caring.

Hypothesis 3-your choice of Particular Therapeutic Treatments

The third and you can latest investigation was designed to address the newest forecast you to epistemology could be an excellent predictor of counselor https://datingranking.net/es/citas-de-aventura-es/ usage of particular medication processes. Far more especially, the rationalist epistemology often statement using techniques from the cognitive behavioural treatment (elizabeth.g. pointers providing) more constructivist epistemologies, and practitioners which have constructivist epistemologies commonly report having fun with procedure of constructivist medication (age.g. emotional running) more than therapists which have rationalist epistemologies). A parallel linear regression data was presented to determine in case the predictor variable (therapist epistemology) tend to determine counselor recommendations of one’s standards details (procedures processes).

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 comment

อีเมลของคุณจะไม่แสดงให้คนอื่นเห็น ช่องข้อมูลจำเป็นถูกทำเครื่องหมาย *