Theory About three: Improved therapist affiliation will be associated with the increased introject affiliation in DBT

Theory About three: Improved therapist affiliation will be associated with the increased introject affiliation in DBT

In order to sample the next hypothesis i used formula dos to look at the fresh new connection ranging from thought therapist affiliation and you may introject association all over months into the treatment and you may medication class. Our first details provided: 1) the dimensional analysis away from specialist association which have introject association and you can dos) this new SASB team ratings away from affiliative conclusion also therapist affirm that have introject care about-affirm, therapist active love with introject productive self-love, and you will specialist cover that have introject thinking-cover. The four HLM analyses examining the organization between such parameters when you look at the DBT, whenever rated in one assessment period, were not high neither was basically the latest independent outcomes of specialist affiliation on introject affiliation.

DBT patients which reported greater critiques out-of specialist active like advertised even more introject thinking-love on the pursuing the research period, 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 cliquez pour la source, 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 might be in the less common NSSI when you look at 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