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 had a tendency to set far more focus on the private thread on the healing relationships as compared to therapists having good rationalist https://datingranking.net/es/citas-luteranas/ epistemology
The current analysis showed that counselor epistemology try a critical predictor with a minimum of specific areas of the working alliance. The best shopping for was in relation to the introduction of good private bond within consumer and counselor (Bond subscale). It helps the notion from the literature you to constructivist therapists set an elevated increased exposure of strengthening a quality healing relationships described as, “greet, knowledge, believe, and you will caring.
Theory step three-your selection of Particular Healing Interventions
The 3rd and finally study is designed to target the new anticipate that epistemology would be a beneficial predictor from specialist entry to specific medication process. Significantly more specifically, your rationalist epistemology often statement using procedure with the intellectual behavioral therapy (e.grams. pointers giving) over constructivist epistemologies, and you may practitioners which have constructivist epistemologies will statement using process associated with the constructivist medication (age.grams. mental operating) more than practitioners that have rationalist epistemologies). A multiple linear regression investigation was used to determine if the predictor changeable (therapist epistemology) have a tendency to determine specialist critiques of your own expectations details (treatment 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.