Hypothesis Three: Enhanced specialist affiliation might be of this increased introject association in DBT

Hypothesis Three: Enhanced specialist affiliation might be of this increased introject association in DBT

In order to decide to try the next theory i applied picture 2 to examine new relationship anywhere between detected therapist association and introject association around the weeks in the medication and you can medication group. All of our no http://datingranking.net/it/siti-di-incontri-geek/. 1 variables included: 1) brand new dimensional analysis of specialist association with introject association and you will dos) the newest SASB group evaluations out of affiliative behavior along with specialist affirm having introject notice-affirm, specialist effective love which have introject active mind-like, and therapist protect which have introject worry about-manage. The fresh five HLM analyses examining the connection ranging from such variables for the DBT, whenever rated in one testing several months, just weren’t significant neither was basically brand new independent aftereffects of specialist affiliation toward introject association.

DBT clients whom stated greater feedback of therapist active love said significantly more introject notice-love from the following evaluation 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 = -0.26, 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 Five: Increased counselor association could be for 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.