Kocabaşoğlu Mühendislik

BLOG

Yazım Tarihi: 13 Aralık 2022

The main standardized beta coefficient (? = 0

The main standardized 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 good constructivist epistemology tended to put so much more emphasis on the personal bond on healing matchmaking compared to the practitioners with good rationalist epistemology

The present day research showed that counselor epistemology was a life threatening predictor with a minimum of particular areas of the working alliance. The strongest finding was in relation to the introduction of a beneficial personal bond involving the consumer and counselor (Bond subscale). It supports the notion from the literary works you to definitely constructivist practitioners lay an elevated focus on building an excellent therapeutic matchmaking described as, “invited, insights, faith, and caring.

Hypothesis step three-your choice of Specific Therapeutic Interventions

The third and finally analysis is designed to target this new forecast one epistemology might be good predictor of counselor accessibility certain treatment techniques. A lot more especially, that rationalist epistemology commonly report playing with techniques of intellectual behavioral medication (elizabeth.grams. pointers giving) more than constructivist epistemologies, and you may therapists with constructivist epistemologies often statement having fun with procedure with the constructivist medication (e.grams. psychological control) more than practitioners which have rationalist epistemologies). A parallel linear regression data are held to decide in case your predictor variable (specialist epistemology) often dictate specialist evaluations of your requirement parameters (cures procedure).

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.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir