GURU KASHI SOCIETY

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 good constructivist epistemology tended to put way more increased exposure of the private bond on the healing matchmaking as compared to therapists that have an effective rationalist epistemology

The modern research showed that specialist epistemology try a significant predictor of at least specific regions of the functional alliance. The strongest interested in was a student in relation to the development of an effective private thread amongst the consumer and counselor (Thread subscale). This supporting the notion in the literary works that constructivist practitioners put a heightened focus on strengthening a quality therapeutic relationships described as, “anticipate, wisdom, believe, and you will compassionate.

Hypothesis step three-your choice of Certain Therapeutic Treatments

The 3rd and latest investigation was created to target the fresh new anticipate you to definitely epistemology would be a good predictor from specialist the means to access certain medication processes. A lot more specifically, that the rationalist epistemology often statement playing with process of this intellectual behavioral cures (age.g. guidance providing) more than constructivist epistemologies, and you may therapists with constructivist epistemologies have a tendency to statement having fun with techniques regarding the constructivist cures (elizabeth.grams. mental running) over practitioners that have rationalist epistemologies). A multiple linear regression analysis was presented to determine in the event the predictor varying (counselor epistemology) have a tendency to dictate counselor evaluations of your own expectations details (procedures techniques).

mancanza sito di incontri

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.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *