The key 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.
Practitioners with a beneficial constructivist epistemology tended to place much more emphasis on the non-public bond on the therapeutic dating compared to practitioners having a good rationalist epistemology
The current analysis showed that specialist epistemology is a life threatening predictor of at least specific aspects of the working alliance. The best wanting was a student in regards to the development of a good private thread between your consumer and you may 
specialist (Bond subscale). So it supporting the idea regarding the books that constructivist practitioners place a greater emphasis on strengthening a good healing dating described as, “greet, skills, believe, and you can compassionate.
Theory step three-your choice of Particular Therapeutic Treatments
The 3rd and you can finally analysis is made to address the fresh new anticipate one to epistemology would-be an excellent predictor of specialist the means to access specific medication techniques. Alot more particularly, that the rationalist epistemology commonly report using techniques regarding the intellectual behavioral cures (e.g. advice giving) more than constructivist epistemologies, and you may therapists which have constructivist epistemologies have a tendency to declaration having fun with procedure associated with the constructivist medication (elizabeth.grams. emotional running) over therapists that have rationalist epistemologies). A simultaneous linear regression data try presented to choose if your predictor varying (therapist epistemology) often influence counselor recommendations of the 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.