PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-ENGAGERS
PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-ENGAGERS
PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-ENGAGERS
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Table 6<br />
Proportions of Helping Skills Used in Intakes for Both Engagers and Non-engagers<br />
1 st Third 2 nd Third 3 rd Third Overall<br />
Helping Skill M SD M SD M SD M SD<br />
1. Approval-Reassurance .08 .06 .09 .05 .08 .05 .08 .04<br />
2. Closed Question .21 .15 .24 .17 .10 .07 .17 .10<br />
3a. Open Question-Thoughts .12 .07 .09 .05 .05 .04 .08 .03<br />
3b. Open Question-Feelings .01 .01 .01 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01<br />
3c. Open Question-Insight .00 .02 .00 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01<br />
3d. Open Question-Action .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00<br />
4. Restatement .23 .08 .30 .14 .13 .05 .20 .06<br />
5. Reflection of Feelings .04 .04 .05 .06 .02 .02 .03 .02<br />
6. Challenge .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .01 .00 .00<br />
7. Interpretation .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .01 .00 .00<br />
8a. Disclosure-Feelings .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00<br />
8b. Disclosure-Insight .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00<br />
8c. Disclosure-Action .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00<br />
8d. Disclosure-Miscellaneous .02 .02 .01 .03 .01 .02 .01 .02<br />
9. Immediacy .01 .04 .01 .02 .03 .03 .02 .02<br />
10a. Information about Process of Helping .25 .19 .10 .10 .46 .16 .31 .12<br />
10b. Information-Facts/Data/Opinions .02 .03 .09 .10 .08 .11 .07 .08<br />
10c. Information-Feedback about the Client .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00<br />
11a. Process Advisement .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01 .00 .01<br />
11b. Directives .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .02 .01 .01<br />
12. Other .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00<br />
Preliminary Analyses<br />
Since the data for the present study consist of helping skills nested within clients<br />
who are nested within therapists, the observations are not independent, which violates an<br />
assumption of logistic regression analyses. To address this assumption, preliminary tests<br />
of differences among therapists and among clients within therapists were conducted at the<br />
alpha = .05 level. The therapist and client effects were tested separately for each of the 10<br />
skill categories using t-tests of covariance parameter estimates obtained using<br />
Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling (GLMM) in SAS with the PROC GLIMMIX<br />
command. Clients nested within therapists as a random factor occasionally produced<br />
statistically significant effects, so the cl(th) nesting factor was retained for all 10<br />
categories analyzed. However, therapists as a random factor did not produce any<br />
84