THỨ TƯ,NGÀY 22 THÁNG 4, 2020

Theory Three: Improved specialist association is for the increased introject affiliation in the DBT

Bởi Nguyễn Phùng Khuân

Cập nhật: 11/09/2022, 11:40

Theory Three: Improved specialist association is for the increased introject affiliation in the DBT

To attempt the next theory we applied equation dos to examine the newest association anywhere between observed counselor association and introject affiliation around the months inside procedures and you may cures classification. Our very own number 1 details integrated: 1) the latest dimensional product reviews from specialist association having introject association and you may dos) the newest SASB class evaluations out-of affiliative decisions together with specialist affirm which have introject notice-affirm, therapist energetic like having introject energetic mind-love, and specialist include that have introject notice-include. The brand new five HLM analyses exploring the relationship between such details into the DBT, whenever ranked in one testing period, were not tall nor was basically the brand new independent results of specialist affiliation on the introject association.

DBT clients whom claimed higher feedback of therapist energetic love stated a great deal more introject mind-like in the following the testing several months, B = 0

Using the same variables, we ran a series of four lagged HLM analyses examining the association between ratings of the therapist behavior and next period ratings of introject. Dimensional ratings of therapist affiliation on next period introject affiliation in DBT were not significant nor were the independent effects of therapist affiliation on next period introject affiliation. Analysis of the lagged association between the SASB clusters revealed two significant findings. 23, SE = 0.08, t(97) = 2.99, p < 0.00, CI = 0.08, 0.39. Similarly DBT patients who reported greater ratings of therapist protect reported an increase in introject self-protect in the following assessment period, B = 0.18, SE = 0.09, t(97) = 2.11, p < 0.04, CI = 0.01, 0.35. Results were not significant for an increased association between therapist affirm and next period ratings of introject self-affirm in DBT.

In comparison to CTBE, DBT patients reported a stronger, positive association between therapist affirm and next period envie des rencontres entre adultes ratings of introject self-affirm, B = -0.37, SE = 0.21, t(96) = -2.25, p < 0.03, CI = -0.69, -0.04. In contrast, CTBE patients reported a tendency for the opposite pattern where higher ratings of therapist affirm predicted less introject self-affirm in the following assessment period. DBT patients also reported a stronger, more positive association between therapist active love and next period ratings of introject self-love compared to CTBE, B = -0.26, SE = 0.11, t(97) = -2.32, p < 0.03, CI = -0.47, -0.04 (See Figure 5 ). Results were not significant when comparing treatment differences in the lagged association between therapist protect and introject self-protect or dimensional ratings of therapist affiliation and introject affiliation.

Theory Four: Increased therapist affiliation could well be from the less common NSSI for the DBT

The fourth hypothesis examined the association between SASB rated therapist affiliation and NSSI during DBT. Poisson HLM models showed no significant effect for the dimensional rating of therapist affiliation on NSSI apart from treatment. In the DBT condition, patients who perceived their therapists as more affiliative also reported less NSSI, B = -0.87, SE = 0.45, z = -1.94, p < 0.05, regardless of time in treatment. In comparison to CTBE, DBT therapists reported a significantly greater association between increased therapist affiliation and less NSSI, B = 0.01, SE = 0.00, z = 2.36, p < 0.02.

Supplementary analyses examined the specific SASB therapist clusters contributing to this overall effect. Analyses resulted in three significant effects where higher levels of therapist affirm, B = -0.01, SE = 0.00, z = -2.37, p < 0.05, higher levels of therapist active love, B = -0.01, SE = 0.00, z = -2.56, p < 0.05, and higher levels of therapist protect, B = -0.01, SE = 0.00, z = -2.70, p < 0.05, were associated with fewer occurrences of NSSI for DBT patients. In comparison to CTBE, results showed a significant treatment interaction for therapist affirm and therapist protect where DBT patients reported a stronger association between increased affirmation and protection with decreased NSSI. In contrast, CTBE showed the opposite pattern where patients who reported higher levels of therapist affirm showed more frequent NSSI while therapist protect showed little association with NSSI. Lagged analyses examining the order of change between patient perception of therapist behavior and next period ratings of NSSI were not significant.

Bình luận

Tôn trọng lẫn nhau, hãy giữ cuộc tranh luận một cách văn minh và không đi vượt quá chủ đề chính. Thoải mái được chỉ trích ý kiến nhưng không được chỉ trích cá nhân. Chúng tôi sẽ xóa bình luận nếu nó vi phạm Nguyên tắc cộng đồng của chúng tôi

Chưa có bình luận. Sao bạn không là người đầu tiên bình luận nhỉ?

SEARCH