We help the world growing since early 1940
Real Estate Development & Construction| Kolumns | New Delhi

Posts

The important standardized beta coefficient (? = 0

The important 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.

Therapists that have a constructivist epistemology tended to set way more focus on the private bond throughout the therapeutic relationship compared to practitioners with a good rationalist epistemology

The current studies indicated that counselor epistemology was a critical predictor with a minimum of specific aspects of the working alliance. The best looking was at reference to the introduction of a beneficial private bond between your customer and specialist (Thread subscale). This helps the notion on literature one to constructivist therapists put an elevated increased exposure of strengthening a quality healing matchmaking characterized by, “invited, wisdom, faith, and caring.

Theory step three-your choice of Certain Healing Treatments

The next and you may final study was created to address the fresh new forecast one epistemology will be good predictor out of specialist use of particular procedures procedure. More especially, that the rationalist epistemology have a tendency to statement having fun with processes on the intellectual behavioral treatment (age.g. suggestions providing) over constructivist epistemologies, and you can practitioners with constructivist epistemologies often statement playing with processes with the constructivist cures (e.g. psychological control) more practitioners having rationalist https://datingranking.net/local-hookup/bristol/ epistemologies). A simultaneous linear regression investigation is conducted to determine should your predictor adjustable (therapist epistemology) usually influence therapist product reviews of one’s standards variables (cures process).

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.

No Comments :

Leave a Reply :

* Your email address will not be published.