The main standard 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 which have a constructivist epistemology tended to place a whole lot more emphasis on the private thread from the therapeutic matchmaking as compared to practitioners which have a good rationalist epistemology

The modern research revealed that specialist epistemology is actually a life threatening predictor of at least some aspects of the functional alliance. The best trying to find was in relation to the development of a good individual thread amongst the buyer and you will therapist (Bond subscale). It helps the idea throughout the literary works one to constructivist therapists place a greater increased exposure of building an excellent healing dating characterized by, “acceptance, expertise, faith, and you may caring.

Hypothesis step 3-the selection of Specific Healing Treatments

The 3rd and you will finally research was created to target the new prediction you to definitely epistemology might be a predictor from therapist use of particular treatment techniques. Way more specifically, that rationalist epistemology often statement playing with techniques associated with the cognitive behavioural procedures (elizabeth.g. pointers providing) more constructivist epistemologies, and you can practitioners that have constructivist epistemologies have a tendency to report playing with procedure regarding the constructivist cures (age.g. mental running) over therapists having rationalist epistemologies). A multiple linear regression analysis is conducted https://datingranking.net/it/incontri-over-60/ to determine in the event the predictor varying (therapist epistemology) often influence therapist studies of the requirement parameters (cures processes).

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.