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 which have a great constructivist epistemology had a tendency to place significantly more increased exposure of the personal thread throughout the healing relationships compared to the therapists that have a great rationalist epistemology
The modern data revealed that counselor epistemology try a serious predictor of at least specific regions of the working alliance. The best seeking was at relation to the introduction of a beneficial personal thread within client and you can therapist (Thread subscale). It supports the idea on the books one to constructivist practitioners set an elevated emphasis on strengthening a quality therapeutic matchmaking described as, “anticipate, expertise, trust, and you may caring.
Theory step 3-your choice of Specific Therapeutic Treatments
The 3rd and you may final analysis was designed to address the new prediction one to epistemology could be good predictor out of specialist access to certain treatment processes. Even more specifically, your rationalist epistemology tend to statement having fun with procedure associated with cognitive behavioural procedures gratis Gelegenheitssex Erwachsene Dating (age.g. pointers offering) over constructivist epistemologies, and you will therapists having constructivist epistemologies have a tendency to statement playing with procedure of this constructivist therapy (e.g. psychological running) more than therapists with rationalist epistemologies). A parallel linear regression study was conducted to decide if for example the predictor changeable (therapist epistemology) tend to dictate counselor critiques of the standards variables (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.