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 a good constructivist epistemology had a tendency to put more emphasis on the personal bond throughout the healing relationships versus practitioners which have a beneficial rationalist epistemology
The modern research revealed that specialist epistemology are a significant predictor of at least particular areas of the working alliance. The strongest searching for was in regards to the introduction of a beneficial personal thread between the client and you may specialist (Bond subscale). So it supporting the idea regarding literary works you to definitely constructivist practitioners set an increased emphasis on strengthening a quality therapeutic relationship characterized by, “greet, wisdom, believe, and you may caring.
Theory 3-your selection of Specific Healing Treatments
The third and you may final studies was designed to address this new forecast one to epistemology would-be a good predictor regarding specialist access to certain procedures procedure. Much more particularly, that rationalist epistemology tend to declaration playing with techniques regarding the intellectual behavioral treatment www.datingranking.net/it/incontri-over-60 (e.grams. recommendations providing) more than constructivist epistemologies, and practitioners that have constructivist epistemologies usually declaration playing with techniques associated with constructivist medication (age.g. psychological operating) over practitioners with rationalist epistemologies). A simultaneous linear regression study are presented to determine whether your predictor varying (specialist epistemology) will dictate specialist reviews of the criterion details (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.
