PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-ENGAGERS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Estimated Likelihood (%) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Restatements 1st Third 2nd Third 3rd Third Thirds of Intake Session 91 Non-engager Engager Figure 4. Adjusted estimated mean percentages of restatements for engagers and non-engagers across thirds of the intake sessions. The Condition X Time interaction was significant, F(2, 3856) = 5.66, p = .004. Engager and non-engager groups did not significantly differ from each other (comparing vertically) within any of the thirds. Research Question 5: Do proportions of therapist reflections of feelings differ across time (1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd thirds of intake sessions) and condition (engager versus non- engager)? For reflections of feeling, the Condition X Time interaction was statistically significant, F(2, 3856) = 3.17, p = .042. Planned comparisons indicated that therapists did not significantly differ in their use of reflections of feeling with engagers versus non- engagers in the first or second third of the sessions, F(1, 3856) = 0.13, p = .721, and F(1, 3856) = 0.32, p = .574, respectively. Results for the final third were marginally
significant, F(1, 3856) = 3.95, p = .047. Figure 5 depicts the Condition X Time interaction for the adjusted estimated mean percentages of reflections of feeling. Estimated Likelihood (%) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Reflections of Feeling 1st Third 2nd Third 3rd Third Thirds of Intake Session 92 Non-engager Engager Figure 5. Adjusted estimated mean percentages of reflections of feeling for engagers and non-engagers across thirds of the intake session. The Condition X Time interaction was significant, F(2, 3856) = 3.17, p = .042. Engager and non-engager groups did not significantly differ from each other (comparing vertically) within any of the thirds. Research Question 6: Do proportions of therapist disclosure-miscellaneous differ across time (1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd thirds of intake sessions) and condition (engager versus non- engager)? For disclosure-miscellaneous, there was no statistically significant Condition X Time interaction, F(2, 3856) = 1.64, p = .195, and so we removed the interaction term from the model and tested the main effects models. Therapist use of disclosure- miscellaneous did not significantly differ between engagers and non-engagers, F(1, 3861)
Page 1 and 2:
ABSTRACT Title of Document: PSYCHOT
Page 3 and 4:
PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-E
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents List of Tables ..
Page 7 and 8:
Last Third of the Intake: Helping S
Page 9 and 10:
List of Figures Figure 1: Approval-
Page 11 and 12:
therapists (Hill & Lent, 2006), tha
Page 13 and 14:
third of the intake) and types of t
Page 15 and 16:
“completed treatment” - from a
Page 17 and 18:
ange on the OQ-45.2 when beginning
Page 19 and 20:
Wierzbicki and Pekarik (1993) condu
Page 21 and 22:
Enabling factors or barriers refer
Page 23 and 24:
MI evaluation were statistically si
Page 25 and 26:
later dropout (Barrett et al., 2008
Page 27 and 28:
male) at a university counseling ce
Page 29 and 30:
= 12.3, p < .001, and lower rates o
Page 31 and 32:
F(1, 261) = 40.64, p < .001. Limita
Page 33 and 34:
clinic in a medium-sized Midwestern
Page 35 and 36:
Summary. In summary, there are seve
Page 37 and 38:
quality of the technique (e.g., app
Page 39 and 40:
therapist behaviors which may be be
Page 41 and 42:
of the three judges. Based on an ex
Page 43 and 44:
theoretical orientation. Furthermor
Page 45 and 46:
occur after closed questions, and I
Page 47 and 48:
Elliott’s (1985) system used in t
Page 49 and 50: 8 women who were interviewed to det
Page 51 and 52: lasted 20 minutes for each type, tr
Page 53 and 54: corresponded to similar categories
Page 55 and 56: does not provide restatements, refl
Page 57 and 58: presenting concerns, psychosocial h
Page 59 and 60: counselors was reported. Minimal fa
Page 61 and 62: (1991); and Tryon (2003). At the en
Page 63 and 64: counselor’s emphasis from gatheri
Page 65 and 66: composed of volunteer undergraduate
Page 67 and 68: Table 3 Tryon (2003) Mean Number an
Page 69 and 70: therapy service at the university (
Page 71 and 72: treatment outcome (which means the
Page 73 and 74: Chapter 3: Statement of the Problem
Page 75 and 76: engagement, and f) a definition of
Page 77 and 78: the intake session, and about 4% wi
Page 79 and 80: Research Question 9: Do proportions
Page 81 and 82: Chapter 4: Method The present study
Page 83 and 84: Indian and Portuguese; aged 20-28,
Page 85 and 86: or abandoned by romantic partners.
Page 87 and 88: Intake sessions. When clients arriv
Page 89 and 90: unitizer had a unit in a meaningful
Page 91 and 92: Table 4 Proportions of Helping Skil
Page 93 and 94: Table 6 Proportions of Helping Skil
Page 95 and 96: to the last third of the session, a
Page 97 and 98: second to last third, F(1, 3858) =
Page 99: Estimated Likelihood (%) 12 10 8 6
Page 103 and 104: Research Question 7: Do proportions
Page 105 and 106: Estimated Likelihood (%) 60 50 40 3
Page 107 and 108: Research Question 10: Do proportion
Page 113 and 114: Client Avoidant Attachment Scale Av
Page 115 and 116: Client Outcome Expectations How con
Page 117 and 118: minimal encouragers since the 2009
Page 119 and 120: In contrast, information about the
Page 121 and 122: duration. This null finding diverge
Page 123 and 124: Limitations Although the present st
Page 125 and 126: for need for therapy and “How con
Page 127 and 128: Appendix A: Preliminary Tests of Th
Page 129 and 130: Barrett, M., Chua, W., Crits-Christ
Page 131 and 132: Dodd, J. (1970). A retrospective an
Page 133 and 134: Hampton-Robb, S., Qualls, R. C., &
Page 135 and 136: Hill, C. E. (2009). Helping skills:
Page 137 and 138: Johansson, H., & Eklund, M. (2005).
Page 139 and 140: Ligiero, D. P., & Gelso, C. J. (200
Page 141 and 142: Pekarik, G. (1983). Follow-up adjus
Page 143 and 144: Stiles, W. B. (1978). Verbal respon
Page 145: Willer, J. (2009). The beginning ps
show all

PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-ENGAGERS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?