PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-ENGAGERS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Estimated Likelihood (%) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Helping Skills in 2 nd Third of the Intake: Comparing Engagement Condition 101 Non-engager Engager Figure 13. Adjusted estimated mean percentages of helping skills in the middle third of the intake session.
Estimated Likelihood (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Helping Skills in 3 rd Third of the Intake: Comparing Engagement Condition 102 Non-engager Engager Figure 14. Adjusted estimated mean percentages of helping skills in the last third of the intake session. Additional Analyses Client attachment style. Attachment styles for engagers versus non-engagers were investigated. Non-engagers were more anxiously attached than engagers (n = 8, M = 5.16, SD = 1.19 versus n = 7; M = 3.93, SD = 1.14, respectively; a large effect size, d = 1.06; see Figure 15), t(13) = 2.05, p = .061 (two-tailed). Marmarosh et al. (2009) reported that clients who dropped out after the third session but prior to a mutually-determined termination had significantly greater Anxiety subscale scores on the ECR than continuers who attended therapy beyond three sessions to a mutually-determined termination, F(1, 46) = 4.64, p < .05 (for dropouts: n = 17,
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 and 100: Estimated Likelihood (%) 12 10 8 6
Page 101 and 102: significant, F(1, 3856) = 3.95, p =
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 109: Estimated Likelihood (%) 35 30 25 2
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?