- 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