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 an excellent constructivist epistemology tended to lay much more increased exposure of the non-public thread throughout the healing relationships than the practitioners which have a good rationalist epistemology
The present day studies revealed that therapist epistemology was a life threatening predictor of at least specific regions of the working alliance. The best looking was in relation to the development of a private bond involving the buyer and you will therapist (Thread subscale). It supports the notion throughout the literary works you to constructivist practitioners set a heightened increased exposure of strengthening an excellent healing relationships characterized by, “acceptance, insights, trust, and you may compassionate.
Theory step 3-the selection of Certain Therapeutic Treatments
The 3rd and last study was created to target the newest prediction one epistemology would-be an excellent predictor out of therapist entry to particular medication techniques. Far more specifically, that rationalist epistemology tend to report having fun with techniques associated with intellectual behavioural procedures (elizabeth.g. information offering) more constructivist epistemologies, and you can therapists that have datingranking.net/it/incontri-con-cornuto/ constructivist epistemologies commonly report having fun with process for the constructivist medication (age.g. mental operating) more practitioners that have rationalist epistemologies). A simultaneous linear regression studies try presented to decide in the event the predictor adjustable (specialist epistemology) have a tendency to influence counselor ratings of your own standard variables (therapy 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.
