The important 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 having good constructivist epistemology had a tendency to set even more increased exposure of the personal thread from the therapeutic relationship compared to the practitioners that have good rationalist epistemology
The modern research indicated that specialist epistemology was a significant predictor with a minimum of particular regions of the working alliance. The best selecting was a student in reference to the development of a private thread between the customer and you will therapist (Bond subscale). Which helps the notion from the literary works one migliore sito incontri musica to constructivist practitioners set a greater emphasis on building a quality healing dating described as, “greet, wisdom, faith, and you can caring.
Theory 3-your choice of Particular Therapeutic Treatments
The third and you may final study was designed to address the fresh prediction one epistemology would be a predictor out-of counselor accessibility certain treatment techniques. A great deal more specifically, the rationalist epistemology often statement having fun with procedure regarding the intellectual behavioral procedures (age.grams. guidance offering) more constructivist epistemologies, and you can therapists that have constructivist epistemologies have a tendency to declaration playing with process with the constructivist procedures (elizabeth.g. emotional handling) more than therapists with rationalist epistemologies). A multiple linear regression research was used to decide in the event your predictor variable (therapist epistemology) will influence therapist studies of your own requirement details (procedures 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.