Theory Around three: Increased counselor association will be of increased introject affiliation from inside the DBT

To help you test the next theory we used picture 2 to look at brand new organization ranging from understood therapist affiliation and introject association round the weeks inside the medication and you may cures classification. All of our first variables provided: 1) the brand new dimensional evaluations from counselor association that have introject affiliation and you may dos) the SASB group recommendations out-of affiliative behavior and additionally specialist affirm having introject care about-affirm, counselor energetic like having introject energetic worry about-love, and you can therapist manage which have introject mind-manage. The fresh five HLM analyses exploring the connection anywhere between these types of variables inside DBT, whenever ranked at the same review months, were not extreme nor was in fact new independent ramifications of counselor affiliation for the introject association.

DBT people whom said higher analysis off specialist active like reported alot more introject mind-like on the pursuing the review 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 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 https://datingranking.net/fr/rencontres-lesbiennes/.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.

Hypothesis Five: Increased specialist association will be of less common NSSI from inside 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.