PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-ENGAGERS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

dropouts and 7 returned for the therapy session after intake). The study was conducted in a university counseling center setting with a short-term (12-session limit) model. Results did not indicate a statistically significant difference in counselor verbal activity between engagers and non-engagers. Results showed that therapists used less information-giving and more minimal encouragers during the intake session for non-engagers than compared to engagers. The opposite was found for engagers: therapists used higher amounts of information-giving and fewer minimal encouragers during the intake session than would be expected by chance. Results also showed that client return for a scheduled appointment after intake was related to an increase in information-giving and a concurrent decrease in closed questions as the intake session progressed. Table 3 summarizes the results from this study. Tryon (2003) proposed that clients returned for therapy when their problems had been sufficiently clarified to begin working on the problems (through the therapist’s providing information in the latter part of the session). Limitations of the study include: the sample of therapists was very small since only one therapist (a 38 year-old Caucasian female clinical psychologist with 5 years of post-Ph.D therapy experience, who had a psychodynamic theoretical orientation) participated in the study, the client sample consisted of only 11 university student clients (seven undergraduates, four graduate students) at a large private eastern university, the setting of the study was a short-term therapy service at the university (the results may not apply to long-term therapy settings), and the statistical methods may be confounded by differing levels of therapist verbal activity (i.e. some therapists talk more than others) since the analyses were based on raw numbers of the helping skills used rather than percentages. 57
Table 3 Tryon (2003) Mean Number and Standard Deviations of Helping Skills Helping Skill 1 st third M (SD) 2 nd third M (SD) Part of Intake Session Mean 58 3 rd third M (SD) Whole session M (SD) proportion for session Approval-Reass. Non-engager – – – – .07 b Engager – – – – .02 b Closed Question Non-engager 11.0 (9.4) 25.8 (18.4) 16.3 (12.7) 53.0 (13.5) a .25 Engager 39.9 (12.1) 30.1 (12.9) 19.6 (11.2) 89.6 (12.1) a .29 Open Question Non-engager – – – – .06 b Engager – – – – .04 b Restatement Non-engager – – – – .06 b Engager – – – – .06 b Reflection not in the version of the HCVRCS used in Tryon (2003) Challenge this category was eliminated from the analyses because expected value was < 5 Interpretation Non-engager – – – – .01 b Engager – – – – .01 b Self-disclosure Non-engager – – – – – Engager – – – – .01 Immediacy not used in Tryon (2003) Information Non-engager 23.5 (14.4) 10.0 (6.1) 22.5 (10.5) 56.0 (10.3) a .27 Engager 25.1 (14.4) 43.1 (33.0) 59.7 (40.1) 128.0 (29.2) a .40 Direct Guidance Non-engager – – – – .04 b Engager – – – – .03 Other c Non-engager – – – – .01 b Engager – – – – .01 b Minimal encour. Non-engager – – – – .21 Engager – – – – .14 b Note. – = data not reported in Tryon (2003). Numbers of verbal responses did not differ between engagers and non-engagers, F(1, 10) = 1.20, ns. Response modes differed between engagers and non-engagers, χ 2 (9, N = 11) = 125.78, p < .001. Engager intake sessions, compared to non-engager intake sessions, had more Information and fewer Minimal Encouragers than expected by chance. Information changed across thirds for non-engagers vs. engagers, F(2, 18) = 3.81, p < .05. Closed questions changed across thirds for non-engagers vs. engagers, F(2, 18) = 5.60, p < .02. Minimal encouragers approached significance for thirds X engagement status, F(2, 18) = 3.21, p = .06. a Calculated based on information in Tryon (2003): added raw numbers from thirds to get total, averaged S.D.s to get total S.D. b Estimated from Figure 1 in Tryon (2003) because exact numbers were not reported. c Percentages may be obscured by the category of silence being eliminated from analysis (expected value of this category was less than 5).
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: composed of volunteer undergraduate
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 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?